ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Border Exit Checks

Jennifer Willott: What progress her Department has made on implementing exit checks at borders.

Theresa May: The Government are on track to deliver their commitment to introduce exit checks on scheduled commercial international air, sea and rail routes by April 2015.

Jennifer Willott: It is clear that exit checks, which were scrapped by the previous Labour Government, are a critical part of any competent immigration system. I know that progress has been made, but how sure is the Home Secretary that she will hit the target of 100% exit checks by March?

Theresa May: As I indicated in my original answer, we are on track to ensure that we have exit checks in place by April 2015. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the significance of exit checks in the immigration system, and I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister for Schools who have together been supporting the Home Office to ensure that we can meet our commitment.

Alex Cunningham: Given the situation at our border in Calais, does the Home Secretary regret scrapping fingerprinting, which used to help us to identify and deport those who were trying to enter our country illegally night after night?

Theresa May: We are doing a great deal of work with the French authorities in relation to the situation at Calais. The hon. Gentleman mentions fingerprinting, and it is important that those who are coming to Calais and trying to get across to the United Kingdom should be fingerprinted when they first enter the European Union. In most cases, they are coming in through Italy.

Andrew Gwynne: But what is the Home Secretary doing to identify the 50,00 failed asylum seekers that the Public Accounts Committee has said her Department has failed to identify?

Theresa May: I think it is a bit rich for Labour Members to stand up in the Chamber and complain about the immigration system when many of the problems that we are dealing with have been inherited from the last Labour Government’s failed immigration policy.

James Paice: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the problem of illegal immigrants does not exist only in the locale of Calais? There is ample evidence that many of them are getting into lorries as far afield as Spain, and this is particularly affecting lorries bringing fresh food into this country, as their whole load has to be condemned when the immigrants are discovered. Is she aware that our retail sector is becoming increasingly worried about fresh food supplies? Will she meet me and representatives of the industry to discuss ways of getting on top of this issue?

Theresa May: I am certainly happy for either I or the Immigration Minister to meet my right hon. Friend and representatives of the industry. We are aware of this issue, and we are looking to introduce an improved ability to identify people in lorries when they pass through our juxtaposed controls in Calais, but as my right hon. Friend has said, the problem is that those people are often getting into the lorries further afield. Also, even if we find them at Calais, the load is still considered to have been damaged and contaminated.

Police and Crime Commissioners/Police Oversight

John Pugh: What assessment she has made of the effect of city deals and other forms of devolution on the future of police commissioners.

Nick Brown: Whether her Department plans to devolve police oversight functions to city mayors outside London.

Michael Penning: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall answer questions 2 and 16 together.
	Police and crime commissioners have brought direct accountability and localism to policing in this country, and, as we have seen in London, incorporating the role of the PCC in mayoral devolution has worked really well, especially under this excellent London Mayor.

Mr Speaker: I have to say that I have received no request for the grouping of questions 2 and 16, but we will see what we can do if the Minister continues to smile nicely.

John Pugh: I thank the Minister for that response. Given the terms of the Manchester city deal, does he agree that police and crime commissioners could become surplus to requirements? Would not culling them result in useful savings?

Michael Penning: No; the police and crime commissioners are doing an excellent job. They bring accountability. The only bid to incorporate the PCC role at the moment is the bid from Manchester, and I look forward to seeing it working on the ground.

Nick Brown: How will these arrangements work in the north-east of England, which has one economic zone—incorporating Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear—but two police authorities and two police and crime commissioners? Does the Home Office propose to merge the police authorities and their commissioners or to transfer their functions to a new individual?

Michael Penning: It is entirely up to the local community to decide what it wants. If we look at other parts of the country, we can see that West Mercia and Warwickshire are working closely together. If the police authorities in the right hon. Gentleman’s area wanted to merge, they would need to put their business plan to us. It is not only the big cities that could come together; such proposals could involve rural areas as well.

John Spellar: Does the Minister recognise that the police and crime commissioners can work only within the resources and policy frameworks that are set nationally? Will he take this opportunity to support community policing and to reject the ridiculous suggestion from Tom Winsor that the police should ignore offences such as shoplifting and antisocial behaviour?

Michael Penning: We will make sure that local communities decide what sort of policing goes on in their area, and PCCs have the role of making sure that is happening. There are excellent Labour and Conservative PCCs around the country, and I cannot understand why the Labour party wants to get rid of its own people who are doing a good job.

Mental Health

David Jones: What steps she is taking to improve the approach of the police to working with people with mental health problems.

Oliver Colvile: What steps she is taking to improve the approach of the police to working with people with mental health problems.

Bob Blackman: What steps she is taking to improve the approach of the police to working with people with mental health problems.

Nigel Mills: What steps she is taking to improve the approach of the police to working with people with mental health problems.

Theresa May: We have taken a number of significant steps in this area: we have launched schemes including street triage, and liaison and diversion; we have reviewed the Mental Health Act 1983; and we have introduced an agreement supported by more than 20 partners nationally to improve the way the police and their partners deal with people with mental health problems. Police cells are now being used less frequently as a place of safety, and I am pleased to say that our work is already having an impact.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned the successful street triage initiative. Health is a devolved competence in Wales, so what work is her Department doing with the Welsh health authorities to ensure an efficient system of street triage there?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out that of course this matter has a different relevance in relation to Wales and the Welsh health authorities. We are working on health and policing with the Welsh Government, Welsh PCCs and the chief constables to spread best practice, but I am pleased to say that, through the non-devolved police aspects of this national work programme, funding from the Home Office innovation fund is supporting a pilot triage scheme in Dyfed-Powys—the first such initiative in Wales. It is another example of the benefits of PCCs, because it has been championed by Chris Salmon, the PCC there.

Oliver Colvile: I wish you a happy new year, Mr Speaker.
	Plymouth’s Charles Cross police station reputedly has England’s busiest custody suite. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to locate a community mental health nurse at Charles Cross to help people with mental health and autistic challenges?

Theresa May: As my hon. Friend will know, the provision of mental health nurses in police custody suites is a local issue, but I am pleased to tell him that from April 2015 NHS England will commission liaison and diversion services across Devon and Cornwall, including in Charles Cross police station, and that will provide people in police custody who may have mental health issues and autistic challenges with access to mental health nursing.

Bob Blackman: It is clearly good news that the number of people detained overnight in police stations under the Mental Health Act has been reduced by 25% in the past year alone. Clearly, it is important that individuals who are ill need to be treated medically, rather than be detained in police stations. What further action can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that people who are ill receive the medical treatment they require?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the success of the work already being done across the country, including in London, to reduce the number of people with mental health problems who are being held in a police cell as a place of safety. Police cells should only ever be used as a place of safety for somebody with mental health problems in exceptional circumstances. We are encouraging police forces across the country to look at the success of the triage schemes that have already been undertaken and take on board the very good practice which is having a beneficial effect for those with mental health problems and for police resources.

Nigel Mills: May I urge the Home Secretary to make it absolutely clear that there is no place at all for children with mental illnesses being in our police cells? I believe she has confirmed that that is the case, but I would be grateful if she would do so again.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a police cell should not be a place of safety for a child with mental health problems—we are very clear about that. That is one issue that has emerged from the review we have undertaken, with the Department of Health, of sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act, and I am clear that in future we should not see children being held in a police cell as a place of safety when they have mental health problems.

Kevan Jones: Some 1,600 acute beds in mental health facilities have been lost on this Government’s watch. What assessment has the Home Secretary made at local level about beds being available for people who actually need them? Does she really think it is acceptable that in some cases people are having to travel up to 200 miles to access a crisis bed? Is that not why people are ending up in police cells, rather than in mental health crisis beds where they should be?

Theresa May: Under this Government we are seeing a significant change in the way in which people with mental health problems are being dealt with by both the
	police and the NHS: it is this Government who have reviewed sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act; it is this Government who have introduced the street triage pilots, whereby more and more people are being taken to proper places of safety in health care settings rather than being put in police cells; and it is this Government who have put mental health clearly on the agenda in relation to health matters—unlike the Labour Government.

Kerry McCarthy: Police officers locally tell me that because of the cuts they are being used far too frequently as the service of last resort because the other services are just not there to step into the breach. Distressed family members have come to me when they are worried about the behaviour of their relatives, who they fear might harm themselves or someone else, but they really do not want to go to the police. What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that the police are absolutely used only as a last resort and that other agencies are there to step in?

Theresa May: The situation in which the police were being used as a first resort rather than a last resort—particularly for those with mental health problems—carried on year after year under the previous Labour Government with no action being taken. This Government have introduced the street triage pilots, the liaison and diversion services, and the care crisis concordat, which has been signed up to by 20 national bodies and which is having a real impact out on the streets. We have more to do in this area and we will be doing more. The number of people with mental health problems taken to a police cell as a place of safety has fallen, and it has fallen as a result of the action that we have taken.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement that, under sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act, police cells should not be used for children. In our inquiry into policing and mental health, the Home Affairs Committee heard distressing evidence from families and guardians of young people with mental health problems taken into police cells. Will the Secretary of State consult those families and guardians on how policing of mental health for children can be improved as a matter of urgency?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am happy, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for policing, to ensure that we do more of what we are already doing, which is talking to people who have experienced this problem at first hand and therefore gaining more understanding of the issue. This matter has been addressed not only by the Home Affairs Committee but by the Health Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), which has produced a report making exactly that point about young people. It said that children should not be taken to police cells as a place of safety when they have mental health problems.

Migration Target

Nicholas Dakin: What recent assessment she has made of the likelihood of the next migration target being met.

Theresa May: Where we can control migration, our reforms have cut non-EU migration to levels close to those not seen since the 1990s. However, EU immigration has almost doubled to unprecedented levels in the past two years. Many EU migrants are coming to the UK to work because of this Government’s success in rebuilding the economy and creating jobs.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Home Secretary agree that when the Prime Minister said “no ifs, no buts” about getting net migration down to tens of thousands, he made a promise to the British people that he now appears to have broken?

Theresa May: I have been very clear and said publicly that yes, we have been blown off course of our net migration target. I have just indicated that in the figures I mentioned in relation to EU migration. The Prime Minister has set out a number of ways in which we intend to address that particular issue, but it is this Government who have been addressing issues across the immigration system that have led to non-EU immigration coming down to levels close to those of the 1990s.

James Gray: I strongly support the work that the Home Secretary has done with regard to controlling bogus student visa applications. That was a huge problem that she has got rid of. However, how would she answer my constituent Sir James Dyson, who said that if her latest remarks about automatically sending all students home on completion of their studies were taken literally, there would be dire consequences for businesses such as his which rely on engineers and scientists from overseas?

Theresa May: We have been very clear in all the changes we have made to the immigration system that we welcome the brightest and the best to the United Kingdom. We have no limit on the number of people who are coming here genuinely to study in a proper educational establishment. I am pleased to say that visa applications from university students rose by 2% in the year ending September 2014, with an increase of 4% for the Russell Group universities. We also need to recognise that the latest survey showed that in one year 121,000 students came in from overseas and only 50,000 left. Figures suggest that in the 2020s, we will see 600,000 overseas students each year in this country.

Meg Hillier: Entrepreneurs in Shoreditch to whom I speak greatly welcome migration. The Home Secretary’s colleague the Business Secretary came to an event organised by Tech City News to applaud the input of migrants in Shoreditch, so who is right: the Home Secretary or her colleague the Business Secretary?

Theresa May: There is no difference between two members of a Cabinet in a Government who believe that the brightest and the best should be able to come to the United Kingdom to work. We listen to business, and when we changed the system for non-EU economic migration we made every effort to do it in a way that business applauded.

Peter Bone: Immigration from the EU is the No. 1 issue in my constituency and across north Northamptonshire. The Prime Minister is
	the only party leader who will make any attempt to reduce immigration from the EU, and he has given a further guarantee that if he fails to do that the British people will have the chance to vote in a referendum by 2017 to get out of the EU. I am looking forward to that referendum; is the Home Secretary, and might she be voting to come out?

Theresa May: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The question relates purely to the likelihood of the next migration target being met, so this is not an occasion for a general dilation on the EU. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not hoping for any such thing.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend was attempting to tempt me, Mr Speaker, but I am grateful for your guidance in this matter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Prime Minister is the only party leader who has set out an intention to deal with free movement in the European Union and to do it in a way that enables us to do what everybody wants and to have the degree of control over our borders that we wish to have.

Pete Wishart: Will not the Home Secretary just concede that her immigration cap did not work and could never work, because we live in an interconnected, globalised world of which the free movement of people is a key feature? Will she agree that any future attempt at a UKIP-inspired immigration cap will be as disastrous as the last UKIP-inspired immigration cap?

Theresa May: I said in my original answer that we have been blown off course from the net migration target. The hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to bring about changes in net migration, but I remind him that migration from outside the European Union has come down to levels close to those of the 1990s.

Tony Baldry: It is clearly progress that net migration from non-EU countries is now at levels not seen since the 1990s. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what action the Home Office is taking to ensure that those who have no right to be within the jurisdiction are removed from the country, such as foreign prisoners when they have completed their sentence of imprisonment and those who have been found by an immigration appeals tribunal to have no right to asylum here? What action is being taken to ensure that those people leave the country when they are told that they have no right to be in the country?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of dealing with those who have no right to be here. We are addressing it in a number of ways. For example, we are working hard with a number of other countries to ensure that they are willing to take back their foreign national offenders; we have ensured that there are fewer appeal routes for people who no longer have a right to be in the United Kingdom; some foreign national offenders have a right of appeal outside the country rather than inside the country; and we have undertaken a pilot with university students in the south-west to remind them when their visa comes to an end so that they leave the country. The issue is being addressed in a number of ways.

Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

Nick Smith: When she next plans to meet the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.

James Brokenshire: I take this opportunity to thank John Vine, who left his post as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration at the end of December. His work has been invaluable in assisting Ministers and improving the operation of the immigration system, and I shall meet his successor once appointed.

Nick Smith: Recent National Audit Office figures have shown that the Government’s border management and immigration policies have not stopped 10,649 foreign national offenders sitting in British prisons. One of the Home Secretary’s predecessors lost his job over this issue. A year on from the Department’s latest plan of action on this matter, there is still no real impact on the figures. When will the Home Secretary and a new chief inspector get a grip and deal with the problem properly?

James Brokenshire: As the Home Secretary has already said, we have got a grip on the issue. We are taking further steps through the operation of the Immigration Act 2014 to ensure that if there are appeals, they are heard outside this country’s jurisdiction, and that article 8—the right to family life—does not trump the ability to remove someone from the UK. It is that work and work across Government that are making sure that we are able to remove foreign national offenders from the UK.

David Hanson: I join the Minister in paying tribute to John Vine for his work as chief inspector of borders and immigration.
	The chief inspector’s latest report on British citizenship applications shows that, on the Minister’s watch, scant regard was given by the Department to checks on criminal behaviour, fraud or immigration status. Since that report’s publication, what steps has the Minister taken to check histories and remove citizenship, if appropriate? Will he instigate proper investigation and record keeping? If he will not, a future Labour Government will.

James Brokenshire: Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman just stated, the chief inspector was clear that criminal record checks had been carried out in all cases that were examined. We have reminded caseworkers of the need to ensure that the appropriate guidance is adhered to, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the issues identified by the chief inspector arose in large measure from decisions of the last Labour Government to grant leave to people without going through the full requirements. We are still clearing up the mess that they put us in and we are focused on turning the ship around.

Crime Levels

John Howell: What assessment she has made of changes in the level of crime since May 2010.

Lynne Featherstone: Police reform is working and crime is down by more than a fifth under this Government, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. England and Wales are safer than they have been for decades, with the survey showing crime at the lowest level since it began, in 1981.

John Howell: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will she join me in congratulating Thames Valley police? We saw a 30% drop in recorded crime between June 2010 and June 2014. What does that say about the extent to which Thames Valley police are keeping my constituents safe?

Lynne Featherstone: I am happy to do as my hon. Friend suggests and congratulate Thames Valley police on all they have done in reducing crime by 30% in their area, but I also congratulate all police forces that are rising to the challenge of driving efficiency and cutting crime. Effective policing plays a key part in reducing crime, as does tackling the underlying drivers of crime, which this coalition is also doing.

Steve Reed: The Minister does not have much to say about card crime, which is up by a quarter, or online banking fraud, which is up by 71%. More and more people shop online, particularly over Christmas and the new year, but Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary found that just 2% of police had any training in cybercrime. When will the Government stop being so complacent about crime that is still rising?

Lynne Featherstone: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Up to now, cybercrime has been a lesser interest. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the trend among all people now is to buy online, but I would say that what is illegal offline is also illegal online. Policing cyberspace is just as important as policing the streets, and that is what our police force is doing.

Simon Kirby: The police in my constituency do an excellent job. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them on reducing crime by 13% and keeping us all safe in the great city of Brighton and Hove?

Lynne Featherstone: I am more than happy to congratulate my hon. Friend’s local police on their efforts to reduce crime and their success in doing so. As I said, I congratulate all police forces across the country who are managing the reductions efficiently and cutting crime.

Kevin Brennan: Does the Minister agree with Sir Tom Winsor that policing shoplifting is not necessarily to be done?

Lynne Featherstone: I might not have put it that way, but when one compares murder with shoplifting, that is one issue. The important point is that all crime should be tackled, regardless of what it is. Someone might start with shoplifting, but who knows where they will end up? Our objective is to cut all crime.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

David Ward: What assistance her Department offers to people without five years’ residency applying for indefinite leave to remain, who have been delayed in entering the country on a spouse visa because they are waiting for a determination on a British passport application for a child born outside the UK due to delays in obtaining the initial spouse visa.

James Brokenshire: In considering immigration applications, UK Visas and Immigration will not generally take into account the time taken to establish the British citizenship of a child of the applicant. That is because the child’s status will affect the immigration requirements on the applicant, such as the minimum income threshold to be met by foreign spouses, which should be dealt with before an application is made.

David Ward: Is the Minister aware of the impact on family life of these long delays? Such are the delays that by the time the spouse’s visa is granted, there may be one or two children, and then the mother will often have to make a decision about whether to stay abroad and be delayed there by starting the probationary period or to come to this country and leave the children abroad.

James Brokenshire: I am obviously happy to look at any individual cases that my hon. Friend may wish to highlight and I can examine further. A British passport is not issued to a child born overseas until the Passport Office is satisfied that all the relevant identity, nationality and child protection issues have been identified. I am sure that my hon. Friend would support that.

Syrian Refugees (Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme)

Sarah Teather: How many Syrian refugees have been resettled in the UK under the Government’s vulnerable persons relocation scheme to date.

James Brokenshire: We remain on track to relocate several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme over the next three years. Between the first group of arrivals on 25 March and the end of September, 90 people were relocated to the UK under the scheme. In addition, over 3,400 Syrians and their dependants have been granted asylum or other forms of leave to remain since the start of the crisis.

Sarah Teather: The Minister will no doubt be aware that 2015 has already seen two worrying trends for Syrians fleeing the violence of war: first, an increase in restrictions imposed on those seeking to settle in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon; and secondly, even more refugees boarding boats and taking risky journeys in the Mediterranean. Does he recognise that our unwillingness to offer anything more than tokenistic safe legal routes for resettlement and family reunification of refugees exacerbates both those trends? We have no moral standing when arguing with neighbouring countries that they should keep their borders open, and desperate people will take any route to try to improve their lives when facing violence such as Syria’s.

James Brokenshire: This Government have taken important steps by providing aid that is benefiting hundreds of thousands of people in the region, and focusing on some of the most vulnerable cases that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme is designed to address. On borders, we are supporting the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and we are in dialogue with Syria’s neighbours, recognising the importance of effective management and also the fact that international law is clear that refugees should not be turned back in these circumstances.

Nia Griffith: Italian Ministers told the European Scrutiny Committee that increasingly people coming on boats and being rescued from them are refugees from areas such as Syria, not just economic migrants. When will the Government sign up to the UN programme so that we do our fair share, like other countries?

James Brokenshire: This country is doing its fair share in many different ways through the direct aid that is being provided—£700 million that is directly affecting and benefiting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people—and the asylum that is being granted through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. We are also working overseas with countries affected to create a long-term settlement of this issue, as well as confronting the organised crime that exploits the vulnerable.

Diana Johnson: The UK does indeed have a very proud tradition of offering refuge to those in desperate need. The Government’s relocation programme for Syrian refugees was supposed to help orphan children, sexually abused women, victims of torture, and those needing specialist medical treatment. Other European countries are providing this support, with 310 people going to Ireland, 1,000 people going to Norway, and 1,200 people going to Sweden. As the Minister said, in the UK last year only 90 people were accepted. How many victims—specifically, how many orphan children and sexually abused women—will the UK be offering support to this year?

James Brokenshire: We remain on track to support several hundred vulnerable individuals over the next three years. The figures underline that. Those who benefit from the scheme are chosen by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, with whom we work in close co-operation. It is therefore the UNHCR that advances and puts forward individual cases based on the vulnerability-type factors that the hon. Lady identified.

Border Security (Calais)

Charlie Elphicke: What recent discussions she has had with the French authorities on border security at Calais.

James Brokenshire: It is in the interests of both the UK and France to work together to tackle migratory pressures at Calais. The Home Secretary last met the French Interior Minister on 5 December. We continue to work closely with the French authorities on all matters of border security and cross-border criminality to maintain the integrity of our joint border controls.

Charlie Elphicke: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the £12 million in the agreement will be spent on bolstering security and not on a welcome centre at Calais? Will he also reject representations from UKIP that the border controls at Calais should be scrapped and brought back to Dover?

James Brokenshire: I am very pleased to underline the points that my hon. Friend makes. We are not providing financial support for any day centres. Our financial support is focused on security at Calais and on confronting the organised criminality that seeks to take advantage of those trying to come to the UK. The juxtaposed controls absolutely benefit this country and we have no plans to change that.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I saw for ourselves the security measures that have been introduced with the help of the Government, though part of the fence that we saw blew down over the Christmas holidays because of high winds. As the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, the area is now a magnet for those who wish to come to our country. Does the Minister agree that the problems in Calais are best addressed at the external frontiers of the EU? That means Frontex doing much more to ensure that the Mediterranean is policed properly but humanely, so that there is no repetition of what happened to the Ezadeen ship as it arrived in the EU very recently.

James Brokenshire: I agree that the problems lie beyond the UK’s shores. That is why, for example, we have taken part in the Khartoum process, which is an EU-African Union mechanism to focus on human trafficking. With reference to the EU border, Frontex has in place Operation Triton. As we are not within the Schengen zone, we do not participate directly, but are providing assistance. This is a matter that we continue to discuss with other EU Ministers.

Tim Loughton: The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee is quite right about our trip to Calais, where we found that in the past year more than 10,000 potential migrants had been apprehended by the good work of the border police and by the investment of no less than £150 million by Eurotunnel on fencing over the past 10 years. Is not the real problem that when potential migrants are apprehended, the French police take them 2 miles outside town and release them without even taking their fingerprints, so they can come and do it all over again?

James Brokenshire: I agree with my hon. Friend on some of the incredibly good work being undertaken at the northern French ports, particularly the work of Border Force, and the investment that has been provided there. We are investing further in security at Calais. We continue to have discussions with the French authorities on how we can strengthen the response, and those discussions will continue in the weeks ahead.

Mark Reckless: Given these discussions, why have the French authorities set up a Sangatte 2 camp in Calais? What effect does the Minister think that will have on the situation?

James Brokenshire: The French Government will clearly make their own determinations and responses on matters relating to what happens on French soil. Our focus is on security at the juxtaposed controls and on combating organised crime, on which we have good joint working with the French and other Governments. It is clear that we should not establish measures that may act as some sort of magnet and may make the problem worse.

Regionalising Police Forces

Douglas Carswell: What plans her Department has to regionalise police forces in England and Wales.

Michael Penning: The Government have no plans to move away from the localism that local police forces give us. Localism is something for which the hon. Gentleman campaigned for many years.

Douglas Carswell: Does the Minister recognise that although there may be advantages to be gained by regionalisation, such as economies of scale, larger police forces could mean a greater distance between the public and the police and less local accountability?

Michael Penning: I am slightly confused, because the hon. Gentleman campaigned for the introduction of police and crime commissioners when he was a Conservative Member and sat on the Government Benches. Is he now saying that they should not be there? Perhaps it is just a UKIP policy: one day one thing, and the next day another. At the end of the day, local democracy means that local authorities can make decisions. If they want to amalgamate, they can submit a business plan to us. Manchester has done that, but it is the only one.

Steven Baker: Would not regionalising policing mean either the abolition of PCCs or a multiplication of several times over in the size of their constituencies? Does the Minister agree that either course would be a terrible slap in the face for those who campaigned so hard for so long for the system we now have?

Michael Penning: There are many present in the Chamber—including, perhaps, one Opposition Member—who have campaigned for localism over many years and who passionately believe in it. PCCs give that to the community and I cannot understand why anybody would change their mind about them.

Philip Hollobone: Proposals to merge Northamptonshire police into an east midlands police force, as advanced by the Labour party when it was in power, would have been disastrous for Northamptonshire. The present proposals from the police commissioner and the head of the local fire brigade to increasingly merge their operations make lot of sense on so many levels. Will my right hon. Friend encourage this?

Michael Penning: Not only will I encourage it, but I have seen it going on around the country. Taxpayers’ money needs to be spent efficiently and it must be done in a way that is right for the emergency services. I have seen that happen, and if it happens in my hon. Friend’s constituency then so be it, but it will be a local decision.

Lincolnshire Police Budget

Robert Flello: What recent discussions she has had with the chief constable of Lincolnshire on the budget of the Lincolnshire police.

Michael Penning: The Home Secretary and I meet all the chief constables regularly and I personally met the chief constable of Lincolnshire very recently.

Robert Flello: With more than 8,000 front-line police officers out of 16,000 cut already, is not the Lincolnshire chief constable right to warn that the loss of a further 6,000 front-line officers, along with other cuts, will simply mean that police forces across the country will collapse? They will go and there will not be any need for PCCs because there will not be any forces.

Michael Penning: I am sure the residents and constituents of Stoke-on-Trent South will be interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s interest in Lincolnshire. At the end of the day, it is for Lincolnshire and its chief constable to decide what they want to do and we will support them in those decisions. They do not have to be about a reduction in police officers; actually, we have seen an increase in the number of police officers on the ground in Lincolnshire.

Edward Leigh: I am surprised that my otherwise good friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) is suddenly taking such an interest in the Lincolnshire constabulary. To put things in perspective, the reason our budgets have suffered for many years is the sparsity factor formula put in place by the previous Labour Government which transferred resources from rural authorities to places such as Stoke-on-Trent. Having said that, we have still managed to cut crime in Lincolnshire by 20% over five years.

Michael Penning: To be honest, I perfectly understand that any chief constable and PCC will campaign for extra money, but at the same time I cannot understand the sudden interest taken in Lincolnshire by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). When this Government came to power, 91% of police were on the front line; that figure is now 93%. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is absolutely right to say that there has been a 20% cut in crime in Lincolnshire.

Jack Dromey: Like many other chief constables around the country, the chief constable of an efficient and effective police service in Lincolnshire has made it clear that the Government’s proposed cuts will see meaningful neighbourhood policing ceased; response times get longer; officer safety put at risk; the ability to investigate historic child sex exploitation cases limited; and public confidence in policing severely eroded. Is he right to say that and is it right for the Home Secretary to spend £50 million on next year’s PCC elections when what the public want is for that money to be invested in front-line policing?

Michael Penning: I do not recognise the figure of £50 million, but it is not unlike the Labour party to make up figures as it goes along. At the end of the day, Members either believe in localism or they do not, and running down the police of this country, as the Opposition do regularly, is not the answer. We need to support our police, make sure we can get the austerity through and make sure that more police are on the front line. That is what we are doing.

Special Demonstration Squad

Duncan Hames: What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the findings of the investigation by Chief Constable Mick Creedon into the activities of the special demonstration squad.

Theresa May: Operation Herne is conducting a criminal investigation into the conduct of former special demonstration squad officers, and that work is continuing. As I said in my statement to the House on 6 March 2014, there will be a public inquiry into undercover policing and the activities of the special demonstration squad and I will update the House on the public inquiry as soon as it is appropriate to do so.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Home Secretary for her attention to this matter. It has taken the Met nearly two years to reply to my freedom of information request about their theft of dead children’s identities for undercover policing. From only three out of 18 year groups had a child’s identity not been taken for the purpose of legend building. The so-called legends are broadly as likely to have been stolen from dead children as to have been invented from scratch. Given their feet dragging on this matter, what confidence can the Home Secretary have that police attitudes to undercover practices have truly changed?

Theresa May: I know my hon. Friend has taken up and worked very hard on this particular issue. I believe that one of the assistant commissioners from the Metropolitan police gave very clear evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the fact that the approach to the use of dead children’s names and identities has changed within the Metropolitan police. They are very clear that this should not be happening now, and as I say, they have changed the action they take.

Citizenship Applications

Andrew Turner: How many applicants have been granted citizenship over the last 20 years; and what estimate she has made of the number of errors or mistakes made in decisions on citizenship in that period.

James Brokenshire: The published national statistics of British citizenship grants show that there have been more than 2.4 million grants of citizenship over the last 20 years. The recent report by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration endorsed decision making in the overwhelming majority of cases examined.

Andrew Turner: None the less, will my hon. Friend say when errors were made and what the consequence of such changes would have been? Is he able to find out how many such citizenship errors should not have been made?

James Brokenshire: The Government are clear that the grant of UK citizenship is a privilege for those who deserve it, not an automatic right for those who do not. Some of the issues identified by the chief inspector relate to a decision in 2007 to grant a large number of people the right to remain here indefinitely even if they did not meet the rules, and we are working through a process on that. We have also tightened the rules so that if someone has a bad immigration history, they are banned from becoming a British citizen for at least 10 years.

Topical Questions

Jeremy Lefroy: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: A few days before Christmas, Merseyside police officer Police Constable Neil Doyle was brutally killed while off duty. I am sure the whole House would want to express our condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
	Before the Christmas recess, I set out proposals further to reform policing in England and Wales. I announced plans to introduce a statutory limit of 28 days on pre-charge police bail to prevent individuals from spending months or, in some cases, years on bail only for no charges to be brought. I published joint proposals with the Department of Health to reform the use of sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to ensure that those with mental health problems, particularly children, receive proper health care and support, rather than the closing of a police cell door when they are in crisis.
	Under this Government, police reform is working and continues to work. According to the independent crime survey for England and Wales, our reforms have seen crime fall by more than a fifth and the proportion of police officers on the front line rise to more than 90%. Although police spending rose year on year when Labour was in power, we have successfully delivered savings to reduce the deficit while protecting the front line.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Has she noticed the progress made by Staffordshire police in dealing with the scourge of uninsured vehicles by confiscating and ultimately crushing them in public, and would she recommend the use of that practice elsewhere?

Theresa May: I am happy to applaud the work done by Staffordshire police. The issue of uninsured vehicles is a problem that affects people across the whole country, and I am sure that other police forces will want to look at the work of Staffordshire police force and its success.

Yvette Cooper: May I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to PC Neil Doyle, as well as his colleagues and his friends and family, and all police who take so many risks to keep us all safe?
	James Dyson has called the Home Secretary’s new plan to expel overseas postgraduates “short-sighted”, and has said that it will lead to “long-term economic decline”. The Conservative former Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), has said that it is “mean-spirited” and will damage our exports and our universities. Even Conservative central office backed away from her policy yesterday, so does the Home Secretary stand by her plan? Does she believe that overseas graduates should all have to return home before they can even apply for a high-skilled job in British science or the NHS—yes or no?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady will have heard my previous responses on that issue, and I am clear that our policies are right and ensure that the brightest and best are coming to the United Kingdom. Of course we want people who wish to come here to do genuine degrees at proper educational establishments, but the Government have been clearing up the abuse that was allowed to run rife with student visas under the previous Labour Government, and 800 colleges are no longer able to take in overseas students. We want the brightest and best to come to the UK, and that is exactly what our policies are destined to do.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has ducked the specific question of whether she wants overseas students to have to leave the country before they can apply for any high-skilled job in Britain. I hope that means that she is backing away from the policy and that it was simply a proposal from her special advisers—that is obviously why they have been banned from the Tory candidates list.
	The Home Secretary needs to reflect on all her immigration policies because border checks have got weaker, asylum delays have risen by 70%, low-skilled migration is up, her net migration target is in tatters, but the numbers of overseas university students fell last year. Criminals have been given citizenship, the Syrian scheme has been delayed, yet the Home Secretary claimed that her immigration policy is an achievement to be proud of. Will she tell the House whether she is proud of targeting postgraduates while illegal immigration gets worse? How proud is she of giving killers British citizenship while Syrian refugees are refused entry?

Theresa May: I will tell the right hon. Lady what I am proud about. I am proud that this Government have taken immigration seriously and looked across every route of migration into the United Kingdom. We have dealt with—and continue to deal with—abuse in the student visa system, which was allowed to increase significantly under the previous Labour Government, and non-EU migration is now at the levels of the late 1990s. That is a direct result of policies undertaken by this Government, and the Labour party needs to get its story in order. On the one hand people have been told to back off from conversations about immigration on the doorstep, yet on the other hand the right hon. Lady seems to want us to do a variety of things that her Labour Government failed to do when in office. We are dealing with the mess of the uncontrolled immigration system that was left by the previous Labour Government; this Government are getting to grips with our immigration system, unlike the Labour party.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Metropolitan police on a 14% reduction in crime over the past five years, and a 4% reduction in the last year alone? Does he agree that outer-London boroughs such as Havering need resources, as well as central London?

Michael Penning: I congratulate the Metropolitan police on their excellent work—indeed, I was on patrol with them fairly recently and I know well the part of the world that my hon. Friend represents. Not only has crime reduced by 15%, but that has been done by increasing the amount of police on the front line from 86% to 91%. That is something we should all be proud of.

Jim Cunningham: A recent study by the university of Bedfordshire and Victim Support found that one third of 11 to 17-year-olds have suffered physical violence in the past year. Will the Minister make it a priority to ensure that young people are taught how to report crimes and are fully supported throughout the process?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Abuse is not acceptable and victims of abuse need to know where to get the support they need. The Government are committed to ensuring that that is the case.

Karen Lumley: I welcome the Government’s extra funds to support victims of sexual abuse, but will my right hon. Friend outline exactly how we will do that?

Lynne Featherstone: The Government have announced an additional £7 million for victim groups that support survivors of sexual violence. Two million pounds is available for organisations that are reporting an increase in referrals prompted by the independent panel inquiry into sexual abuse. There is another £2.85 million Home Office fund for providers of support across England and Wales, and a £2.15 million uplift on current Ministry of Justice funding to 84 existing rape support centres. Effective, timely support for victims of child sexual abuse is a matter of national importance.

Alex Cunningham: There has been a net loss of 293 police officers from the Cleveland police service since 2010, and our police commissioner says that the budget has been cut by another 5.1%, which could further jeopardise public safety. Does the Home Secretary agree that such losses and cuts are the reasons behind the drop in confidence in policing for the first time in a decade?

Michael Penning: Crime in Cleveland has dropped by 16% in the past four and a half years, and by another 2% this year. Cleveland police should be congratulated, not run down.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Home Secretary share my concern at the rise in rural crime, some of it organised, some of it opportunistic? Will she take this opportunity to make rural crime a target for police activity, so that action is taken to stamp it out?

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend will know that, in her force constabulary area, there has been a 16% cut in crime, thanks in large part to her excellent PCC, Julia Mulligan. As an MP for a rural constituency, I too take rural crime very seriously. My hon. Friend is right that much of rural crime, particularly that involving large agricultural vehicles, is undertaken by organised crime groups. I am pleased that the regional organised crime units are working with local forces to ensure that we tackle rural crime and make it a No. 1 issue.

John Mann: Considering the warning that Tony Robinson has been given about his obligations under the Official Secrets Act, what guarantee can the Home Secretary give that other special branch officers, former special branch officers and others with knowledge of prominent people and historical child abuse will be able to speak out without such obstructions again?

Theresa May: I am very clear that the Official Secrets Act is not a bar to giving evidence to the police or to the inquiry. Arrangements are in place that enable Crown servants to disclose such material when it relates to child abuse. I am clear that that lawful authority should be given in those cases, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue on a number of occasions. I am willing to continue to look at it to ensure—I want this, as he does—that all evidence available is made available to the inquiry, and where appropriate to the police, for proper investigation.

Peter Luff: I listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s earlier answers on immigration, but may I ask her to ensure that efforts to curb immigration will not harm our higher education system or deny British businesses access to skills that they can find only internationally as a result of any new restrictions on visas for graduates at British universities?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the UK’s excellent offer to international students. I am pleased that Britain remains the second most popular destination for international higher education students, but it is right that we clamp down on abuse. As the Home Secretary has indicated, there is a migration issue to address when 121,000 non-EU students come to Britain and stay for more than 12 months, and yet only 51,000 leave. Many universities are acting appropriately to ensure that students leave at the end of their studies, but we are clear that our policies support the brightest and the best coming to the country, and that they support the university sector in that way.

Ian Lucas: The charity Youth with a Mission provides missionaries in Wrexham who help with food banks and work hard in the local community. On 23 December, the charity received notification that its highly trusted status was being suspended. Will the Home Secretary look closely at that faith-based organisation? Many churches within Wrexham have approached me because they are concerned that that help will be removed from my local community.

Theresa May: I am not aware of the specific case the hon. Gentleman raises, but if he wishes to give me the full details of it, I will ensure that it is looked into.

Bob Russell: Drones have been a feature of this place for generations, but drones of the 21st century—unmanned aerial vehicles that provide a growing security threat, invasions of privacy and potentially criminal activity—are a matter of great concern. Does the Home Secretary agree that the current regulations need to be reviewed from her Department’s perspective?

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We continue to keep a close eye on the regulations. I would not say that they are being reviewed, but we will look at whether they need to be addressed in view of that current threat.

Paul Blomfield: Let me give the Home Secretary another chance to answer the question that she has failed to answer so far. When Sir James Dyson describes her plans to further restrict post-study work opportunities as a short-sighted attempt to win votes at the expense of the economic interests of the UK, it is a serious matter. Will she think again?

Theresa May: I say to the hon. Gentleman exactly what I have said in answer to the other questions that I have been asked on this matter. As a Government, we are very clear that the brightest and the best should be able to come here and we have no limit on the number of people who can come to an educational establishment to study for a genuine university degree, but we have sorted out, and continue to sort out, the abuse that remains from the system that was run by the last Labour Government.

Alistair Burt: I recently met the chief officer of the special constabulary in Bedfordshire, Mr Wayne Humberstone, who is leading a growing force that is about to start operating out of a rural police station in Riseley in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to stress again the importance of the special constabulary to effective policing and to encourage employers to allow more employees to make such a contribution to society?

Michael Penning: All hon. Members should encourage employers in their constituencies to allow people who work for them to become specials and serve their community. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in Bedford. The specials in my constituency of Hemel Hempstead do a fantastic job and we should all encourage people to become specials.

Julie Hilling: A growing number of my constituents are victims of cyber-crime, but they complain that they hear nothing once the crime has been reported to Action Fraud. As the Minister could not tell me how many successful prosecutions there were for cyber-crime or what proportion of cases reported to Action Fraud were investigated, how can we have any confidence in the crime figures and what will she do to ensure that cyber-crimes are properly investigated and prosecuted?

Karen Bradley: Cyber-crime is a crime that we are getting to grips with, and we are learning about the parameters of cyber-crime. Action Fraud is doing excellent work, but I agree that it needs to do more to make sure that people who report fraud get full information. I am working closely with Action Fraud to make sure that they do.

Fiona Bruce: Will Ministers make it a priority to introduce mandatory reporting of female genital mutilation and to strengthen policies and procedures to provide victims of FGM with much-needed appropriate support?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend will be aware that at the Girl Summit in July the Prime Minister announced our intention to introduce mandatory reporting for this unacceptable practice. We are consulting on how best to introduce the new duty. Alerting the police to cases of FGM will allow them to investigate the facts and increase the number of perpetrators apprehended. The NHS will support anyone affected by FGM and will offer appropriate advice and procedures when needed.

Tom Greatrex: In October the Immigration Minister said, in response to a National Audit Office report, that he intended that this country would join the Schengen information-sharing agreement, which would provide our border posts with information about people involved in serious crime—such as the person who murdered the son of my constituent, Mrs Elsie Giudici—during the course of the year. Is that facility now available and, if not, when does he expect that to happen?

James Brokenshire: We are finalising the arrangements for joining the second-generation Schengen information system for the benefits that I have identified and to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I regard it as an important enhancement to our work in identifying those with criminal records. It is being advanced and I expect it to be in place very shortly.

Rail Network (Disruption)

Michael Dugher: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the major disruptions to Britain’s rail network over the Christmas period.

Patrick McLoughlin: As I made clear at the time, the disruption at King’s Cross and Paddington after Christmas was totally unacceptable. Passengers deserve a reliable rail service, they deserve clear information, and they deserve rapid help when things go wrong. I am sorry that in this case they did not get those things.
	Before I give the House further details of what happened, I wish to pay tribute to the 11,000 engineers who were working on the track across the country over the holiday period on 300 projects at some 2,000 work sites, often in difficult conditions—a record level of activity and investment and part of the £38 billion being invested in our railways by this Government, working to create capacity, increase reliability and make our railways safer. The vast majority of complex projects were completed on time. For instance, a vital new flyover opened today at Reading—a complex scheme on time and on budget—and London Bridge reopened after key work on the Thameslink programme which will continue for some time. When things go wrong, however, we expect the industry to have proper contingency plans, so let me turn to what happened at Christmas and what is being done to put them right.
	First, at King’s Cross, Network Rail had in place a vital scheme to replace and modernise some seven sets of points and crossings, and associated track and overhead wiring. It involved the replacement of more than 1 km of track, some 12,000 tonnes of ballast and 14 dedicated engineering trains. That work needed to be done and was planned for Christmas to limit impact. It had been planned that two lines would be opened on 27 December to operate a limited service in and out of King’s Cross, but some elements of the work took longer than expected. A decision was taken to run an alternative service terminating at Finsbury Park. As a result, many passenger journeys were seriously delayed and disrupted. The planned modified services were able to restart on Sunday 28 December.
	Secondly, at Paddington, work on signalling was intended to allow lines to reopen in the morning. Safety testing meant that trains were able to operate only as far as Ealing Broadway until mid-afternoon. Neither of those situations should have occurred. It is inevitable that major investment in the railways will, from time to time, mean some disruption, but all of us who use the railways need Network Rail to complete such vital engineering works on time, as were most of its other schemes. Let me turn now to the response.
	I worked closely with Network Rail on the day and afterwards, and I have left it in no doubt of the importance of getting this right. Mark Carne, the chief executive, ordered an urgent review of what went wrong. A report, which will be published, will be provided by the end of this week. One of the questions that needs to be answered relates to the timing of its major works programmes. The industry’s conventional wisdom is that it is generally
	better to carry out major disruptive work over holiday periods when passenger numbers are lighter than usual. The Office of Rail Regulation is conducting its own parallel investigation, which will determine whether any regulatory enforcement action is required and ensure that lessons are learnt. It will work closely with Passenger Focus.
	I and my officials were briefed on key elements of Network Rail’s engineering programme and the associated planned changes to services. We were not, however, involved in planning for the operational aspect of the works programme or the contingency planning. That is as it should be. Network Rail is an operationally independent body and it needs to be able to get on with its job without political interference. If it gets things wrong it will be held to account. We have made it clear to the company that we expect it to deliver the outcomes for which it has been funded over the current control period, including the largest programme of investment since the Victorian era and a reliable daily service. When services do not run as planned, passengers are entitled to be reimbursed if they are delayed significantly. Train operators have compensation schemes in place. In the new franchises, we are improving compensation compared with that left by the previous Government.
	Things should have been done better. I have set out my understanding of the events at King’s Cross and Paddington after Christmas. The level of disruption is wholly unacceptable and I am confident that Network Rail will learn the necessary lessons to minimise the chances of it happening again.

Michael Dugher: In his new year message, the Prime Minister said that Britain faced a choice between competence or chaos. Ministers at the Department for Transport clearly did not get the memo, because at Christmas we saw both chaos and incompetence on our rail network, resulting in misery for passengers who have seen their fares rocket by more than 20% since 2010—three times faster than the growth of wages. The recent chaos all started with the Secretary of State’s decision to allow a near shutdown of train services on Boxing day, letting 17 operators run no service whatever with vastly reduced services everywhere else. The next day, work overran at more than 200 engineering sites, resulting in thousands of passengers facing appalling disruption.
	It was right that Network Rail accepted its responsibilities, and so too should the contractors, but is it not also time for the Secretary of State finally to face up to his share of the responsibility? The Office of Rail Regulation published a damning report back in November into Network Rail’s performance. Was this report not a massive warning sign for Ministers that there would be serious delivery challenges associated with the planned maintenance work over Christmas? What assurances were sought by Ministers on whether the plans for the Boxing day shutdown were robust enough, whether adequate contingencies were in place and whether there was sufficient resilience in the system to ensure that continued disruption would not run into the weekend?
	Where were Ministers during the rail chaos? They were AWOL. It was only after days of disarray that the Secretary of State finally put down his selection box and leapt to action, releasing a statement on the Saturday evening in a desperate attempt to shift the blame entirely
	on to others. On Sunday morning, the rail Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), sent a message to the thousands of passengers who had had their Boxing day and weekend ruined. What words of sympathy and consolation did she offer? She said she was “so chuffed” with the state of the railways—Calamity Claire, the gift that keeps on giving.
	These problems happened on the Government’s watch. The warning signs were there. The Secretary of State has spoken about the lessons that must be learned, but must they not be learned by Ministers too and an apology made to the travelling public?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not hear me apologise. I think his script was prepared before he heard my answer. I have made it fairly clear that what happened was unacceptable, whereas all we have heard from him is empty noise—from a party with no plan and no ideas, from a man who was special adviser at the Department for Transport when Railtrack collapsed and the network fell apart, from somebody who knows all about chaos, because that is exactly what he caused then. He called his predecessors “trainspotters” in the Daily Mirror, but now he pretends to know how to run the railways. I will not take too many lessons from him.
	The hon. Gentleman says that fares have gone up by 20%, but in fact, in real terms, they have gone up by 3%, and this year’s rise was the lowest in a decade. It was his party in government that put them up by 42% in cash terms—a policy that we have ended. He said that Network Rail’s bonuses should reflect what has happened, and I agree, but will he add that the bonus payments agreed by Labour in 2009-10 were nine times this year’s figures?

Michael Dugher: Where was the Secretary of State over Christmas?

Patrick McLoughlin: Where was I at Christmas?

Mr Speaker: Order. The precise details of how the Secretary of State spent his Christmas are a matter for him, as they are for each of us individually. He is answering good-humouredly and should be given the opportunity to continue.

Patrick McLoughlin: It will not surprise you, Mr Speaker, that I spent Christmas in Derbyshire, and I was in constant touch with Network Rail. Yes, I issued a statement on the Saturday—let me take the hon. Gentleman through these things: Christmas day was a Thursday, the problem occurred on Friday and I spoke to Mark Carne on the Friday and the Saturday and have spoken to him several times since the incident.
	As I said earlier, this was the biggest set of engineering works taking place over Christmas. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State should tell Network Rail which safety aspects and bits of engineering works it should not do? Is that the kind of micro-management we could expect from him? He needs to read Labour’s last policy document before he was appointed, because he is the third shadow Secretary of State I have encountered since becoming Secretary of State, and he obviously cannot keep up with what has been said before. Previously, Labour has said that the Secretary of State should not micro-manage the industry. I agree.

Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the investment in financial terms and in the work done on improving and upgrading our rail network is warmly welcomed, but that the other side of coin is that there is a responsibility through Network Rail to ensure minimal disruption to commuters and passengers—not simply during key holiday periods but on every other weekend of the year—who too often hear on a Monday morning about the overrunning of engineering works and cancelled services? What can be done to hold Network Rail more to account to minimise such problems?

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The problem happens when we are doing the sort of massive upgrade to the system that we are doing. Over the five-year period between 2014 and 2019, some £38.5 billion will be spent on upgrading the railway infrastructure, and some of that will lead to delays through overrunning engineering works. I know that particular problems have affected my right hon. Friend’s constituency over some weekends, and I think we should look further to see whether there is a better way of doing the engineering work. Let me point out that 18 months ago, over a period of eight weeks, Nottingham station was closed down while 2,000 people were working on it. That is sometimes an option, but when we are talking about the main London termini, that is really not an option. [Official Report, 7 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 1MC.]

Louise Ellman: Over Christmas too many passengers suffered twice—first from major disruption, when any contingency plan simply failed; and, secondly, from lack of information about what was going on. Does the Secretary of State believe that this was about individual events or was it indicative of a major problem with major works on the railways for which ministerial involvement was required?

Patrick McLoughlin: I partly agree with the hon. Lady, and I know that her Select Committee will see both Mark Carne and Robin Gisby for a hearing next week. I am sure the Committee will pursue the matter with further questions. The truth of the matter is that there is no doubt that there was a failure to communicate with the passenger. The decision was an attempt in certain ways to help some passengers, but with hindsight, Finsbury Park was never really an option for main trains to terminate, and perhaps that should not have been done. However, not to have done that would have meant cancelling at short notice many trains on which people were relying.

John Redwood: Some of my constituents were badly inconvenienced by these matters, and I would like to hear the Secretary of State’s confirmation that they can claim compensation, which would be some recompense. What else can be done to get over to Network Rail that it needs to raise its standards of customer care, concern and efficiency, because it is still vastly inefficient by global standards?

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Compensation is something to which passengers are entitled if the delays were severe and over a certain period. That should happen. On the point about Network Rail overall, as I have said, a number of the projects
	undertaken have been completed successfully—not least one in Reading that affects my right hon. Friend’s constituency. Anyone using that line can see the huge investment, not just in the station but in the new viaduct, which will have a huge impact on reliability for my right hon. Friend’s constituents and others.

Cathy Jamieson: I note that the Secretary of State said that, with hindsight, Finsbury Park was perhaps not the best option. Would it not have been better to have had some foresight and some contingency planning in relation to that?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I have pointed out, most of the schemes with which Network Rail was involved were done on time and to schedule. Of course lessons will be learned from the incidents around Finsbury Park; I would expect them to be. This brings us back to whether during huge engineering works we want to close down the whole system or take action at a time that one hopes will be the least inconvenient for the vast majority of travelling passengers. I believe that this country’s railways and the people who work on them have seen the development of a hugely successful industry—moving from 750 million passenger journeys a year 20 years ago to 1.6 billion journeys last year. That should be regarded as a great success story.

Alan Haselhurst: Is not what is happening on my right hon. Friend’s watch a massive restoration and renewal of our railway system? That must carry more risk of delays, but experience shows that delays do not occur only at Christmas. Should Network Rail consider prescribing a rather longer period in which work should be completed? Passengers will at least be understanding if they are reasonably confident that there will be a return to normal service at a given date, and that they will not be as massively disrupted as they were this Christmas.

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It may be possible for that issue to be revisited by the inquiry that is being conducted by the Office of Rail Regulation, and the industry’s inquiry relating to the best time for big repair works to be carried out. In the past, the aim has always been to carry out repairs over the holiday period, because that disrupts fewer people. As I have said, there were works on nearly every section of the railway throughout the country: on the midland main line, on the Scotland, Anglia and Wales lines, at Reading, and on the west coast and east coast main lines, and a huge amount of work was also being done at London Bridge.

Kelvin Hopkins: Following another rail crisis some six years ago, it was decided to take many engineering staff in house. Now similar problems have arisen, so it can only be that Network Rail’s management is at fault. Is it not time to seek a root-and-branch investigation of Network Rail’s management systems, and to look again at the much better methods of operation employed by British Rail before the disaster of privatisation?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is renowned for his rose-tinted glasses, which are now returning him to a period when there were 750 million passenger journeys a year. Last year there were 1.6 billion, and I regard that as a tremendous success. More people are using the railways in this country than have done so for many a generation. It is only the hon. Gentleman—along with, perhaps, other Members who are sitting with him on that Bench—who looks back with rose-tinted glasses to a period when everything was fine.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend explain from which budget the fines and compensation will be paid? Is it not perverse for the budget that should be paying for these very improvements to be used to compensate the companies that have been inconvenienced? Will my right hon. Friend look very closely at the way in which the Office of Rail Regulation has operated since the changes were made, to establish whether it is fit for purpose and is holding Network Rail to account?

Patrick McLoughlin: I think that the ORR does a good job in holding Network Rail to account, but I will of course take seriously what my hon. Friend has said about its performance. If she wants to send me further details of her complaints, I will certainly consider them.

Jeremy Corbyn: As the Member who represents Finsbury Park, may I ask the Secretary of State to say a big thank you to all the staff who coped with an utterly impossible position on Saturday 27 December, when the station was so overcrowded with passengers? They deserve our recognition and thanks for the hard work that they do.
	The Secretary of State will recall that we had a meeting in his office last year about the future of Finsbury Park station, where a piecemeal improvement has been taking place over many years. Does he not agree that there should now be a serious examination of the capacity problem at that station, given the increasing number of rail passengers, the dangerously overcrowded underground platforms, and a management mix between Transport for London and a train operator on the main line? Will he meet me again so that we can have a new discussion about Finsbury Park and the need for it to be improved?

Patrick McLoughlin: I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking all the people who were involved in ensuring that the vast majority of the vast number of people who turned up at Finsbury Park were kept as informed as possible, in extremely difficult circumstances. This is certainly one of the issues in which I intend to take a further interest, and I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, possibly at Finsbury Park.

Nicholas Soames: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the successful implementation of a very large number of works. Nevertheless, what happened at King’s Cross was inexcusable, and—as will be discovered when the report is published—represents a failure of both management and leadership, with which I hope my right hon. Friend will deal.
	May I also ask my right hon. Friend to turn his attention to the East Grinstead to Victoria line, which has been running with similar impediments and terrible
	inconvenience, largely because the rail companies cannot get enough people to drive the trains? Drivers are available, but they are apparently taking part in training courses. Things would be in a pretty pickle if British Airways did not have enough pilots, would they not?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for acknowledging some of the difficulties and the difficult conditions facing those engineers working over the Christmas period in getting, as I have said, most of the schemes they embarked on back up and running on time; so when things go wrong, it is particularly disappointing. As to his point about the East Grinstead line, I will look at that, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry).

Douglas Carswell: I wrote to the Secretary of State in early December suggesting that Network Rail was incompetent, responsible for serial disruptions on the line to Clacton and East Anglia and unaccountable. Rather than make excuses and justify shoddy performance, will he consider serious, grown-up reform to make sure that this public quango is properly and meaningfully accountable to the long-suffering public?

Patrick McLoughlin: There is unprecedented development on the railway network. I think that is absolutely vital, and I am very keen that a lot of the first-class pieces of engineering done by Network Rail continue to be done by Network Rail, along with the huge investment that we are making into the whole system.

Ian Swales: My constituents were caught up in the chaos on the east coast main line on the 27th, like so many others. They recall poor communication not just during their journey, but in advance of it, for planning purposes. They were, of course, also caught up in the Finsbury Park chaos and held around Stevenage for anything up to two hours. What can the Secretary of State do to ensure that communication is improved and our public transport network is properly operational throughout holiday periods?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not want to keep on repeating myself. I have talked about the necessity of doing these big engineering projects over what is usually the less busy period, as opposed to creating the scale of disruption that would occur if they were done in the normal working week or at other times of the year. We will need to look at this; some of the suggestions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) made that clear. On communications, I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman: the communications were not up to scratch in any way, shape or form, and the whole industry has got to try to address that.

Alison Seabeck: The south-west was cut off from the UK last winter and Network Rail performed miracles in getting that line back up and running. I therefore find it extraordinary that reasons such as the weather have been used to excuse the chaos and incompetence of this debacle, particularly out of King’s Cross. Why did the Secretary of State feel that it was not necessary for Ministers to ask for a basic reassurance that an overrun on any of
	the big programmes could be managed? Why were contingency plans not in place, and why was the rail regulator warning not adhered to?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about Network Rail re-establishing the Dawlish link last winter. I would say that that also came after some very bad weather, which created the problem, and some of the work on that coastal line is still ongoing, 12 months later. On the work that was taking place over this Christmas period, there were 2,000 locations nationwide and the vast majority of work was done on time and to the accepted standards. Two locations had particular problems, and we need to learn the lessons from them and make sure they do not happen again.

John Randall: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks, and I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). One of the problems is that these works are not necessarily one-offs, and they are recognised only when they go wrong and not when they go well. My constituents in West Drayton will be pleased to know that they can get some compensation, but can the Secretary of State think of any way, perhaps given his previous incarnation, whereby some incentivisation for Network Rail, whether by carrots or possibly sticks, might be useful?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure that thinking about a previous incarnation would serve me very effectively in my job as Secretary of State for Transport. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that the carrots are there, and that the Office of the Rail Regulator might well be providing the sticks. It is right to record our recognition of the tremendous work that was done by many engineers across this period. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) has just said, last Easter most Members were praising Network Rail for the fantastic job it had done in restoring the Dawlish link.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Secretary of State accept that an underlying problem is the fragmentation of the railways, with no single guiding mind responsible for providing an integrated railway system? Will he look again at my Railways Bill, which precisely would create a coherent railway system and bring it back into public ownership? This is not about nostalgia. We have only to look at the success of the east coast main line. When East Coast was in public ownership, it delivered far greater public satisfaction than any of the other lines.

Patrick McLoughlin: No.

Stephen Hammond: I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating Network Rail staff on the extraordinary maintenance programme and welcome his swift action in calling Network Rail to account. Will he assure the House that when Network Rail reports to him it will, first, ensure that the systemic failure at King’s Cross is not repeated and does not become endemic across the industry; and, secondly, that, as more services become operational, punctuality is improved?

Patrick McLoughlin: Network Rail will publish the report that has been ordered by the chief executive by the end of this week, in time for the appearance of the chief executive and Robin Gisby before the Transport Select Committee. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance to commuters of the railway’s reliability.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State should have had a warning about these problems from Network Rail’s performance in the run-up to Christmas. If he had been travelling on Southeastern Trains, he would have suffered a great deal of disruption on several days during that period. If he had been on top of his game, he would have asked Network Rail about its capacity to manage the engineering schemes, but he failed to do so. What sanctions will he put in place so that the management of Network Rail can be held to account for their failures over the Christmas period?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will go back to the Department and try to find the letter that the hon. Gentleman sent me warning me that the possibility of delays was so obvious. I think he is speaking with the benefit of hindsight, rather than having warned us about the delays beforehand. I travel on many different parts of the rail network, and I see the huge amount of work that is being carried out on it.

Crispin Blunt: The Southern commuters I represent in Redhill faced a total suspension of services into London Bridge between 20 December and 4 January. They now face three years of reduced service and today, the first day back, the service collapsed, apparently because of signal problems. At a public meeting with me, Southern undertook to explore how it could reduce the cost of season tickets for those long-suffering commuters over this period, but it is now hiding behind its relationship with the Department for Transport. Will the Secretary of State and the rail Minister work with me and Southern to find a way of ensuring that my commuters pay a fair price for a much-reduced service?

Patrick McLoughlin: London Bridge is going through one of the biggest transformations that any station is likely to go through. It has some 220,000 daily users, and this work cannot be undertaken without causing some disruption. Those of us who were using St Pancras station when it was experiencing disruption for many years will know that, at the end of the day, we ended up with a far better station. I accept that my hon. Friend’s point about the in-between periods. The rail Minister and I will be more than happy to meet him and to talk through this programme, which is, as he says, going to go on for three years.

Tom Blenkinsop: At what point was the Secretary of State aware of the contingency plan that Network Rail had put in place to funnel passengers to a clearly inadequate solution through Finsbury Park? Why were solutions such as using the Hertford loop or allowing commuters from north Yorkshire, Teesside and the north-east to use their tickets to go through St Pancras to Sheffield and Leeds, so that they could connect with Transpennine and other services, not examined?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I was told of the difficulties on the Saturday afternoon. I spoke to Mark Carne then or at least on the Saturday evening—I would have to check that exactly, as I had several conversations with him over the Christmas holiday period. The hon. Gentleman’s point about re-routing on the Midland main line was interesting and I do want to check how the contingency arrangements were worked out, as I do not think they were worked out satisfactorily.

Martin Vickers: As my right hon. Friend has said, the situation was inadequate and unacceptable. Does he agree that when such situations occur passengers want information quickly, but that an inadequate number of staff were available? Does he also agree, however, that rather than jump to conclusions, as the shadow Minister has, the best way forward is to await the various reports? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will act on their recommendations?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I will not just get that report; he serves on the Transport Committee, along with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and I am sure it will also issue a report, which I will look at with great interest. The point just made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) about communications in respect of alternative uses and other lines is valid.

Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that, specifically in relation to what happened at King’s Cross, the travelling public will not be impressed with his bland assertion that “some aspects” of the work were delayed? Does he know which aspects were delayed? Is he able to share that with the House? Does he accept that the travelling public, including those poor people caught up at Finsbury Park, feel that so long as Network Rail can get away with just saying, “Aspects of the work were delayed”, these delays will continue to happen?

Patrick McLoughlin: I referred at the start of my statement to the seven points being changed at King’s Cross and the amount of work that was being done. The work over the Christmas period amounted to a £200 million investment—by far the biggest investment in the railways over the Christmas period for many years.

Philip Hollobone: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those Labour Members who are hostile to a privatised railway and yearn for a return to public sector railways need to be reminded that Network Rail is a public sector operator? Given that it is in the public sector, will he urgently review its governance structure, because the absurd sub-board of 30 to 50 supposedly independent members seems to be inadequately scrutinising the board of directors and the chief executive?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend makes interesting points that are worthy of a longer debate rather than just a very short answer. The truth is that Network Rail was reclassified last September when it came on to the public books. What I felt then was the most important thing, and still do, is that the work being done as a
	result of the huge investment that is going in to make the railway both safer and a better system should go on with minimal disruption. The executive board he mentions is not of the size he suggests, and it is a way of trying to involve the general public as well. But the points he makes concern issues I will certainly look at.

Ian Lucas: We have heard much rhetoric from the Secretary of State about additional investment in the railways. In December, did not his Department, under his direction, cancel the investment in phases 1 and 2 of modular signalling improvements in north Wales? Will he confirm that he has authorised that?

Patrick McLoughlin: What I will confirm is that we are investing some £38 billion in the railways, which is more than any previous Government have invested. In 13 years, Labour electrified 10 miles of track. We will be electrifying more than 800 miles, which is a record of which this Government are incredibly proud. [Official Report, 7 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 1-2MC.]

Alec Shelbrooke: Under nationalisation, the railways suffered from decades of neglect and under-investment. I pay tribute to Network Rail for the work it is doing to sort out that problem, particularly as my constituents of Elmet and Rothwell regularly use the east coast main line. Does my right hon. Friend find it incredible that many Opposition Members feel that the answer is to nationalise the railways and go back to the bad old days?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As I have said, we have seen a tremendous increase in the importance of the railways. I do not want to bore the House, but I will repeat the figures that I have already mentioned. Under British Rail, 750 million journeys were made every year. Last year, the figure was 1.6 billion. Growth year on year is the result of the way in which the franchises are selling tickets and promoting the railways.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State quite properly said that the network failure was unacceptable, and he quite properly said that Network Rail would be held to account. But he did not say how it would be held to account. Will he please advise the House what he is doing to hold it to account, and what penalties it will pay?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have mentioned two reports that are under way. One will be given to the chief executive of Network Rail by the end of the week. It will be made public in time for his appearance before the Select Committee. The Office of Rail Regulation is rightly investigating what happened at King’s Cross and Paddington. When I have those reports, I will consider what further action to take.

Tony Baldry: Is it not worth noting that some railway companies such as Chiltern Railways were able to run a service on Boxing day? Indeed, as a consequence of privatisation and investment by Chiltern Railways, running times between Banbury and London have been halved and we are now seeing more passengers being carried faster on certain railway lines than at any time in the history of the railways.

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the improvement in services in his area. We are hearing further calls for even greater improvements, particularly in capacity, as more people are using the railways. But I agree with him about what Chiltern Railways has done for his constituency and for the constituencies along that line.

Andrew Gwynne: What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from this sorry episode over the Christmas period? Does he recognise that the frustration comes not just from cancellations and long delays but from the complexity of the compensation system, with different train companies applying different terms and conditions? There are also times when people end up on a rail replacement bus having paid top fares for a rail journey.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. I will try to answer them all. The new franchises I am issuing have changed the way in which compensation is awarded, and they are a great improvement on those awarded by the previous Government. He also asked me about bus replacement services. If he wants us to carry out improvements on the network, alternatives have to be made available. I accept that our changes and improvements are an issue, but we are investing a record £38.5 billion in the railways between 2014 and 2019. [Official Report, 7 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 2MC.]

Bernard Jenkin: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on whether the report will be able to shed light on who was warning that the risks of this engineering programme were uncontainable and likely to spill over into the commuting timetable? Is it not important that Network Rail improves its risk management and learns how to talk about risk more openly and publicly, rather than the report’s simply allocating blame and punishment, which would not be a constructive way forward?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is right that we need to learn the lessons from any such incident. I am not aware of receiving any letters from the shadow Secretary of State before the incident saying that we were trying to do too much. In fact, I am not sure that I had any representations from any Members saying that we were trying to do too much and were too adventurous. My hon. Friend is right that we must learn the lessons and ensure that we do not have similar incidents in the future.

Mark Reckless: Why does the Secretary of State pretend he is in charge when the reality is that the Network Rail board reports to its members—the 46 public members identified by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—and a similar number of industry vested interests? Does the Secretary of State not understand that the board was set up in such a way by the previous Government only to try to get borrowing off the books? Now that that has failed, why does he not deal with this preposterous management structure?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said earlier, the simple fact is that Network Rail is challenged at the moment with the biggest investment in the railways since the Victorian era. Indeed, in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency
	a brand-new station is being built by Network Rail. Perhaps he wants it cancelled; I will take that as a representation.

Alistair Burt: My constituents coming from Biggleswade, Sandy and Arlesey into King’s Cross were of course inconvenienced and annoyed by what happened, but they are sensible enough to appreciate that the improvements being done were for their benefit and for the benefit of the line, as they have seen over the past few years. May they also add their sensible voices to those expressing concern about any possible sanction impacting on investment in further improvements rather than on those who made the decisions in the first place?

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is vital that we do nothing to put back the very ambitious programme for improvements to our railways that will, in the long term, benefit all our constituents.

Kevin Brennan: The Secretary of State seems to want to blame the shadow Secretary of State and other Members of the House for not warning him that this was about to happen. When he said sorry in his original reply, was he taking responsibility personally as Secretary of State for Transport for the chaos that occurred or was he simply apologising on somebody else’s behalf?

Patrick McLoughlin: I was saying as Secretary of State for Transport that I was very sorry for any inconvenience to passengers. Along with the chief executive of Network Rail, I have put in place measures to ensure that we learn from what went wrong in these incidents, which were clearly unacceptable. The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that when I made these points in the last Transport questions and in giving evidence to the Select Committee just before Christmas, nobody said that we were being over-ambitious.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my right hon. Friend for the clear announcement he has made today and add my thanks for the work done by Network Rail in Dawlish. Will he confirm that improvements to signalling down to my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency will deliver a more sustainable railway line that will get trains there much more quickly—in three hours—and that trains will arrive in Plymouth before 9 o’clock in the morning?

Patrick McLoughlin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the valiant campaign he has led to ensure that he gets faster train services to his constituency, pointing out how important they are for his city. I hope to be able to improve on his campaign so that he gets the services that are wanted for the constituency.

Diana Johnson: After the Christmas shambles, I was pleased to see that the chief executive of Network Rail voluntarily said that he would not take his bonus of £34,000. Has the Secretary of State considered introducing performance-related pay for rail bosses, in the same way as his Government advocate it for teachers?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not think I will take too many lessons from the Labour party about bonuses. In 2009-10, the bonuses paid to Network Rail were £2.3 billion; this year, it was going to be £260,000. I think there should be carrots and sticks, and, if the criteria set are met, a bonus is a way of rewarding the people directly involved in providing services. [Official Report, 7 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 2-4MC.]

Bob Blackman: The football fixtures were published in July last year, with a full programme of matches scheduled for Boxing day. There were no national rail services that day—clearly that decision was taken at some stage during the year. What is inexcusable is the complete lack of communication to football fans across the country about what alternative arrangements should have been made. What can my right hon. Friend offer the inconvenienced football fans who were desperately seeking an alternative way to travel on Boxing day?

Patrick McLoughlin: One of the things I am not responsible for—I do not think any member of the Government is—is the fixture list of football clubs. Perhaps they need to answer the question why some of the fixtures are so far apart in the country at a time when, as has been the case for many a year, there is no rail operation because of engineering work on the lines. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about what should change in the considerations. I do not think football fixtures will be at the top of the priorities, but obviously we should take an interest.

Nicholas Dakin: My constituents have been contacting me, concerned about the squeeze on their living standards from a 20% increase in rail fares since 2010. How can the Secretary of State make sure that there is no repeat of the chaos and that rail passengers get the service that they are more than paying for?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not know if that is a spending commitment that will be matched by those on the Opposition Front Bench. It is no good complaining about the level of investment taking place and then saying that somehow there is a bigger pot of money available to subsidise or support the rail industry. That is just not practicable.

Jeremy Lefroy: I pay tribute to the Network Rail workers and contractors who performed such excellent work on the major renovation at Norton Bridge in Staffordshire, with the new flyover of the west coast main line, but will my right hon. Friend consider what more can be done to help travellers to complete disrupted rail journeys? Often, they find themselves in difficult places at 10 o’clock at night and cannot make the last leg of their journey. I believe that Network Rail has a responsibility in such circumstances. I had to go to Derby to pick up relatives and bring them back to Staffordshire, and as much as love Derbyshire, I prefer to be in Staffordshire for Christmas.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend loves Derbyshire. That may be a feeling the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and I share with him. I would point out that, as he rightly says, the major bottleneck at Stafford and Norton Bridge has now been unblocked, enabling faster, more frequent and reliable
	services for passengers. Engineers carried out essential bridge and track work at Norton Bridge and renewed the signals and overhead wires at Stafford, forming a key part of an overall project costing some £250 million. Although my hon. Friend did suffer some inconvenience, I hope the benefits of the overall project will be longer lasting.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Secretary of State is a man of integrity. He has apologised and he has accepted that both the contingency arrangements and communications were not adequate. Has he had a chance to assess whether the vast amount of work that Network Rail undertook to do at King’s Cross was in fact too much within the time available?

Patrick McLoughlin: That is one of the questions I want the report to address. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Transport Committee and I will be interested to see its report, knowing that Mark Carne and Robin Gisby will be giving evidence to the Committee next week.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Secretary of State agree that this issue is not simply about late-running engineering works and engineering blockades but important infrastructure such as Dover Priory railway station car park, which is even more late-running than the engineering works we have seen? Does that not underline the need to look at the wider structure of Network Rail, the incentives for efficiency and excellence, and the delivery of projects on time?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said, the whole upgrading of the rail network cannot be done without disruption in certain areas, meaning that at certain stages closures have to take place. It would not otherwise be possible safely to do the work that has been required. My hon. Friend’s wider point is a valid one that we will want to address following the experiences we had.

Kerry McCarthy: First Great Western has assured me that it tried its utmost to keep passengers informed about what was going on at Paddington on 27 December, but one of the problems was that Network Rail seemed unable to give it any clear estimates of when the work would be completed, and there were lots of false assurances. How can the Secretary of State ensure that this will not happen again? It has been pointed out to me that it happened last year, in similar circumstances, and the year before as well. Can we be sure that it will not happen next year too?

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree that a lot more can and should be done about communicating what is going on in the rail system, whether by Network Rail or individual train operating companies. When I meet the Rail Delivery Group and the management of Network Rail, I will stress that the whole industry has to address that in future.

UK Ebola Preparedness

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the UK’s Ebola preparedness and the care being given to Pauline Cafferkey, the NHS nurse being treated for Ebola at the Royal Free hospital in London.
	I know the whole House will join me in wishing Pauline well and commending her and her NHS colleagues for the exceptional bravery and compassion they showed in joining the battle against Ebola in Sierra Leone. The work done by Pauline and her colleagues is not just helping to save thousands of lives in Africa; it is protecting the UK from potentially disastrous consequences if the disease spreads beyond the countries where it has currently taken hold. Alongside 69 other NHS volunteers from UK-Med, Pauline spent Christmas on the front line of this vital battle. This House and this country owe them and other colleagues from Public Health England, the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence an enormous debt of gratitude.
	You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that for reasons of patient confidentiality I cannot go into great detail about Pauline’s current medical condition. However, I have this morning spoken to Dr Mike Jacobs, an expert in infectious diseases who is leading the team of doctors and nurses caring for Pauline at the Royal Free. As has been reported, Pauline’s condition has deteriorated to a critical state, although she stabilised yesterday and continues to receive the best possible care. She said in Sierra Leone that she hoped her loved ones would be proud of her. Well, she should know today that the whole country is proud of her for her bravery and dedication to the service of others. She stands, quite simply, for the very best of NHS values.
	I wish to turn to the issue of screening and why Pauline continued her journey from Heathrow to Glasgow. Having worked in Sierra Leone for six weeks caring for Ebola patients, she was screened and cleared to depart on her exit from Sierra Leone on Sunday 28 December. She arrived at Heathrow after a connection in Casablanca at 3.50 pm that day, where she was again screened in line with the protocols introduced into major airports and Eurostar terminals last October. As her temperature was within the acceptable range, she was cleared to fly home to Scotland. Clinical experts have always been clear that the process will pick up a few active infections, but it also provides the best opportunity to ensure that returning staff know whom to contact, and this system worked. While still at Heathrow, her reassessment was triggered because of concerns that she may have had an elevated temperature. She was reassessed and her temperature taken a further six times over 30 minutes. As her temperature was within the acceptable range, she was again cleared to travel.
	Pauline arrived in Glasgow at around 11.30 pm on Sunday 28 December and was driven home. She became feverish overnight and, in line with the public health advice that she had been given at Heathrow, she contacted local services. She was admitted to an isolation facility at the Brownlee unit in Gartnavel hospital in Glasgow at 8 am on Monday 29 December. A blood sample
	tested positive for Ebola at the NHS Lothian testing facility that afternoon, so she was transferred overnight to the Royal Free in a military plane, arriving at 8 am on Tuesday 30 December.
	Some have asked whether it was appropriate for Pauline to be allowed to travel on to Glasgow after she raised concerns about her health at Heathrow. The clinical advice on this is clear. Someone can contract Ebola only by coming into contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person—that means blood, vomit or diarrhoea—which becomes a risk when a patient is exhibiting feverish symptoms. Because she did not have a high temperature, the clinical judgment was made to allow her to continue her journey home.
	However, we recognise that medical understanding of the disease is not complete, which is why we had already taken a number of precautionary steps that go further than strictly required by the clinical evidence. These include asking potential Ebola carriers to avoid crowded places and long journeys on public transport within the 21-day potential incubation period once they arrive back home. Existing guidance also bans any direct patient work for returning health care workers.
	On that precautionary basis, we have, as of last Monday, strengthened our guidance to ensure that anyone from a higher risk group who feels unwell will be reassessed. Advice will immediately be sought from an infectious diseases specialist and the passenger will be referred for testing, if appropriate. The screening centres at Heathrow were viewed first hand on 1 January by the chief medical officer and the Minister with responsibility for public health and all arrangements, including the revised protocols, were found to be working well.
	We will continue to keep screening and logistical arrangements under review and look to improve or strengthen the process, as guided by expert clinical advice. It is important, however, to remember that the risk to the public of contracting Ebola from contact with someone carrying the virus remains very low indeed while they are not exhibiting any symptoms. The critical point—this is the main purpose of the screening—is to ensure that potential Ebola carriers are identified and know how to ask for medical assistance the moment they display any feverish symptoms, so that they can then be isolated, tested and given full medical support as quickly as possible.
	For that reason, on a precautionary basis, Public Health England has been making contact with passengers on the flight that Pauline was on from Casablanca to Heathrow, and has been working with Moroccan colleagues to trace additional UK passengers on the flight from Freetown to Casablanca to make sure that they know what to do if they start exhibiting symptoms consistent with Ebola. I can inform the House that Health Protection Scotland has made contact with all the passengers on the London to Glasgow flight, and Public Health England has made contact with all UK-based passengers who travelled on the flight from Casablanca to London. I would like to thank British Airways and Royal Air Maroc for their assistance in this process.
	The safety of our volunteers is our first priority. Before any NHS workers are deployed to treatment centres, staff from UK-Med, which runs the NHS humanitarian register, review the clinical protocols and procedures and confirm that they are content that the
	centre meets appropriate standards. All UK-Med volunteers receive thorough training in the UK and in Sierra Leone before they treat any Ebola patients so that they know how to use their personal protective equipment and understand the nature of the work. In the current case, as the House would expect, Save the Children is conducting a review into its procedures to ensure that any lessons are learned.
	The House will want to be reassured about the overall state of UK preparedness for Ebola. This country was the first in Europe to screen arrivals from high-risk places in west Africa, and numerous countries have since asked for information on how we did this. We have committed more than £230 million to fight the disease in Sierra Leone. We have sent more than 800 military personnel, 150 Department for International Development staff, 70 NHS staff through UK-Med and 64 Public Health England staff to fight the outbreak on the ground—a bigger contribution than any country in the world except for the United States.
	The chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, has always been clear that we are likely to see up to a handful of cases in this country, of which, very sadly, this is the first to be diagnosed. NHS England has procured personal protective equipment for each of the hazardous area response teams in England and has additionally arranged for 75,000 PPE suits to be procured for the NHS.
	We have been practising Ebola resilience since 30 July and have had 16 ministerial Cobra meetings in total, including five chaired by the Prime Minister. Both the chief medical officer and the NHS England medical director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, are satisfied that at this stage we have made sufficient preparations. However, they stress that, although the risk to the public remains low, we must remain vigilant and be constantly prepared to adjust and improve our processes and protocols as this rapidly changing situation evolves.
	I would like to place on record my thanks to colleagues in the Scottish Government and the UK Government, to the authorities in Sierra Leone and Morocco, to NHS England and to the NHS doctors and nurses at both Gartnavel hospital and the Royal Free for their dedication and hard work over the past few days. I would also like to pay tribute to the dedicated PHE staff who set up the new screening process so rapidly, and thank Border Force staff for their assistance.
	Our thoughts are with Pauline Cafferkey today, but I know all of us are also thinking about her friends and colleagues and the many UK NHS and other personnel working in Sierra Leone right now. They can be reassured that we have no greater priority than their safety, and I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: Over the break, there have been a number of reports suggesting that the Ebola outbreak is far from under control and we saw, as the Secretary of State has said, the first case diagnosed here in the UK. Concerns are rising and that is why the Secretary of State was right to give his informative update to the House at the very first opportunity.
	May I echo the tribute he paid to all the NHS staff, members of the armed forces and aid workers who are showing immense courage in the most difficult of
	circumstances? In particular, we echo his moving words and good wishes for Pauline Cafferkey. Our thoughts are with her and her family right now, and we know she could not be in better hands than those of the team at the Royal Free.
	On the substance of the Secretary of State’s statement, we welcome what he had to say and the action he is taking. As I said the last time he updated the House, we will play a constructive part in helping the Government to minimise the risk to the public. That remains the case and the questions I will put to him—some of which will cover areas he has not mentioned, particularly treatment and vaccine—will be asked in that constructive spirit.
	Let me begin with the circumstances surrounding the case. The Secretary of State mentioned the Save the Children review of how Pauline caught the disease. Are the Government part of that review and/or are they carrying out their own, and when will the results be known? He did not mention when it would be published, but that is important as the next group of NHS volunteers will leave for west Africa in the coming weeks. They will want to know whether procedures and guidance for medical staff working out in west Africa will be reviewed in the light of this case.
	I would also be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell us whether he is satisfied with current guidance to NHS staff here on handling Ebola patients. He will be aware that the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention have recently strengthened their infection control guidance, and on the last occasion he updated the House he said he would follow their lead. What revisions, if any, have been made to those protocols following the CDC’s changes?
	Let me turn to screening. We know that Pauline travelled to Glasgow via London Heathrow and despite informing screening staff at Heathrow that she felt unwell she was still allowed to fly home. I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said about reviewing procedures for future passengers in a similar position, but there are broader concerns. Martin Deahl, who was part of the same volunteer group as Pauline and sat next to her on the plane home, said:
	“The precautions and checks at the airport were shambolic. There seemed to be too few staff and too few rooms or places to put us in. We were crowded into a small reception area where we waited for an hour or more. I had a higher temperature so they wanted to put me in a room by myself—but they could not find one because they were using every inch of space.”
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to keep the arrangements under review, but may I ask him to look into the specific concerns raised by Mr Deahl and to rectify any problems as a matter of urgency, and certainly before the return of the next group of volunteers?
	More broadly, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the screening procedure is adequate in terms of the medical checks that are carried out—are more checks needed than just temperature checks—and, indeed, is he satisfied that staff have had sufficient training? Were the Scottish NHS, the Scottish Government and, crucially, Glasgow airport informed that Miss Cafferkey had warned officials that she felt unwell? In the light of this case, should screening checks be expanded to cover more ports? I would be interested in the Secretary of State’s views on those points. I am sure he would agree that maintaining public confidence in the screening
	procedure is crucial, and I hope he will continue to keep all those questions under review, as he has said he would.
	Let me turn to post-arrival monitoring. A number of states in America have introduced it for all travellers returning from an affected country, whereas only those showing symptoms on return are actively monitored here. Given that symptoms of Ebola can emerge up to 21 days after exposure, is there a case for strengthening post-arrival monitoring in line with other countries?
	On treatment, we understand that Pauline is receiving an experimental drug, not ZMapp, due to a worldwide shortage. When the Secretary of State last updated the House, I asked him whether plans were in hand to increase supplies of ZMapp, so the latest news is a matter of concern. Are any efforts under way to increase manufacturing capacity for ZMapp and/or any other potential treatments? Of course, what would give most confidence to people in the countries affected and further afield is the development of an effective vaccine. Will he say something about the timetable for that, and about the Government’s role in trying to expedite it?
	More broadly, will the Secretary of State give the House his latest view on the adequacy of the international response to Ebola. We hear that the health system in Sierra Leone is in danger of collapse, immunisation programmes have come to a halt and people are not going to the hospitals or clinics because they are frightened of catching Ebola, and that might lead to the spread of other diseases. Over Christmas, William Pooley said:
	“This is a global problem and it will take the world to fix it.”
	Does the Secretary of State share that sentiment, and what are the Government doing to bring about a better global response than we have seen to date?
	In conclusion, it is clear that Ebola will remain a threat for the foreseeable future, and it will not be easy to meet that challenge. We join the Secretary of State in sending our best wishes to Pauline and her family, and we will continue to work with him and the Government to minimise the risk to others.

Jeremy Hunt: May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone of his comments and the official Opposition’s willingness to work closely with us on this very important issue? Let me cover some of the important points that he made.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right that the disease is continuing to progress in those countries. We now have a total of 7,905 reported deaths, and there are 20,206 reported cases, which is likely to be an underestimate. There are some early—I stress, early—signs that the rate at which the disease is reproducing itself is beginning to fall to about the level where it is stabilising. However, those are early signs, and the truth is that we still need to do a huge amount of work to bring the disease under control.
	We think that it is absolutely vital to proceed as quickly as possible with the vaccine that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I can tell him that we currently have three vaccines in the first phase of clinical trials. We have made some changes to speed up the process by which they can be used in the field, and DFID has put in £1.34 million to establish a joint research fund with the Wellcome Trust, so we are making progress on that front.
	It has been impossible to get supplies of ZMapp—the drug given to the other Ebola patient treated in the UK, Will Pooley—because it is grown using genetically modified tobacco plants, so there is a time constraint. Clinically, we do not yet know whether it was significant in Will Pooley’s recovery. We have tried other experimental treatments on Pauline Cafferkey, including using some of the plasma from Will Pooley, and we hope that will have an effect.
	The review by Save the Children is being conducted in conjunction with Public Health England staff in Sierra Leone, and I hope that it will report in the next few days. We are obviously keen for them to report as quickly as possible, but we do not want to put them under pressure not to do a thorough report. I am satisfied with current protective arrangements on the basis of our clinical evidence, but as we saw with the screening arrangements, with a disease such as Ebola we must constantly keep an open mind about the best ways of dealing with things, and we will look carefully at what Save the Children recommends. I am satisfied with the protections in place for NHS workers in the UK on the basis of advice from the chief medical officer, and we will obviously also look at what happened in the US. At the moment we do not believe that the personal protective equipment suits have been breached, but we must keep an open mind and see what other evidence comes forward.
	On the screening procedure, our clinical protocols were followed when Pauline Cafferkey arrived, but organisationally I do not think that it was as smooth as it needed to be. There were a lot of people to deal with, and because it was over the Christmas period we probably did not have as many people to do that as we needed, which meant that those coming for screening needed to wait longer than we would have liked. However, on the basis of revised protocols, and to ensure that we do not repeat this situation—nine more volunteers are coming back this Sunday and 60 more the following Sunday—the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and the chief medical officer have been to inspect what is happening, to ensure that we learn the necessary lessons. Other volunteers have said that they think the screening procedure is working smoothly. This was a relatively isolated incident, but we must learn the lessons.
	On expanding screening to other airports, I will look into whether Glasgow airport was informed and let the right hon. Gentleman know, but we have obviously learned from this event the importance of close working with the Scottish Government, and that has worked very well.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the active monitoring of people who come back, and I think that we have the best system. We are not only actively monitoring those who have been tested for having contracted the disease, but actively monitoring anyone in the high-risk groups. Of the 2,495 people who have been screened since we set up the process, 54 have been identified as having had direct contact with Ebola patients and as being in the high-risk group, and we have an enhanced monitoring process for them. Everyone else is informed exactly what to do if they develop feverish symptoms, which is what happened with Pauline Cafferkey.
	I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to this issue.

Sarah Wollaston: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to Pauline Cafferkey and all NHS volunteers, aid workers, staff at DFID and Public Health England for the work they are doing to keep us safe in the UK by fighting Ebola on the front line in west Africa at great personal risk. I also thank him for updating the House so succinctly on the improvements to the screening protocols, so that everyone will be screened if they have symptoms, not just a temperature. Will he update the House on the vaccines and say whether there has been any progress on the provision of rapid screening for Ebola? Will he reassure us that he will not follow the knee-jerk response that we have heard calls for from some quarters, which is to quarantine all NHS staff, because of the unintended consequences of such an approach?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her constructive comments and I agree with what she has said on this issue. Some 678 health care workers have contracted Ebola since the outbreak of the disease, and of those nearly 400 have died, the vast majority African. That shows how incredibly brave front-line workers are, and perhaps the fact that—tragically—we have someone in this country who has contracted Ebola is a good way of reminding ourselves that many hundreds of other people have already been in this situation. They are all incredibly brave. We are proceeding as quickly as we can with the possibility of having a much speedier Ebola test, which would obviously be helpful for the screening process.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want a knee-jerk response on quarantining people who come back. The contribution of NHS volunteers and health care workers from western countries in fighting the disease in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia is critical. Some 1,500 people from the NHS have volunteered, but they volunteer on the basis that we will follow proper clinical protocols, meaning quarantining people when it is clinically necessary to do so, but not doing so when it is not necessary. If we are to keep their confidence, we must be proportionate in our response.

Tom Greatrex: Pauline Cafferkey is a constituent of mine and works at Blantyre health centre in my constituency. I have spoken to a number of those whom she has treated and her colleagues over the past few days. I am sure the House will appreciate that there is a huge amount of support and concern for her locally, but also a huge admiration for her work in Sierra Leone as an NHS volunteer. I am sure that that is shared by communities throughout the UK, with the exception of a small handful of people who should keep their opinions to themselves.
	On the Secretary of State’s concerns about the screening process, when an experienced clinician describes a process as shambolic, it is not only about the protocol, but about the practicalities. As well as keeping the matter under review, will he ensure constant monitoring each weekend as people come back to ensure that the practicalities are properly kept in check, to ensure that the situation that seemed to happen last Sunday is not repeated?

Jeremy Hunt: I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about what a remarkable lady Pauline Cafferkey is. When she was asked why she was going, she said, “Why wouldn’t you go when so much suffering is happening in west Africa?” That is the measure of the woman.
	On the screening process, I am satisfied that the right clinical processes were followed, but I am not satisfied that it was as well organised as it should have been. That is why we have revised not just the clinical protocols, but the organisation, to ensure that we have the right capacity in place, and that we do not make people wait for as long as they did when Pauline returned on her flight. It is also important to recognise that the Public Health England staff at Heathrow are working very hard doing a difficult job, and are doing their very best.

David Heath: I commend the federal and state authorities in Nigeria for the work they did in containing the Ebola outbreak there last year. In the space of a four-day visit, I had my temperature taken 34 times—whenever one goes into a public building, one has one’s temperature taken. Everyone who visits a Nigerian airport has to fill out a form giving details of where they have been and where they are going, contact details, and details of where they sat on the plane. Is the Secretary of State confident that he has the same level of traceability in this country as the Nigerian authorities have achieved in their country?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I am. I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the actions of the Nigerian authorities. What has happened in Nigeria in respect of Ebola shows a great deal of hope for what is changing in Africa more generally. There was a perception that all African countries would find it as challenging to deal with Ebola as Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea have found it, but it is clear that a generation of African countries have developed substantially and are able to respond in a much more effective way. That is a very encouraging change from what might have been the case 10 or 20 years ago.

Frank Dobson: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am in no position whatever to comment on the effectiveness of the screening and suspect that no one else in the Chamber is. On long-term preparedness, it is several decades since Peter Piot, now director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, first identified Ebola. Worldwide, not enough has been done to address the problems. We should not be looking for a vaccine now; it should have been looked for years ago. I hope the Secretary of State gives full support to the rare disease consortium that has been established by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Imperial college and the Royal Veterinary college to look at infectious diseases that are capable of crossing from one species to another, and in particular this species.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Peter Piot is a remarkable man who came to Downing street to advise the Prime Minister and me early in the development of the Ebola crisis. He is well worth listening to on this subject.
	The right hon. Gentleman also makes a good point in that the global response to Ebola was far from adequate. The World Health Organisation has some important
	lessons to learn, and tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I will meet Margaret Chan, when we will no doubt talk about those lessons. In an era of globalised travel, it is important that we have a much faster and more effective response when we have outbreaks of deadly viruses.

Sarah Newton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the staff of the Royal Cornwall hospital who treated someone returning from Sierra Leone with great professionalism, caring and compassion? Will he reassure me and those staff that, as well as those arriving back from west Africa by plane or train, those arriving back into our ports by ship are effectively screened?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to pass on my thanks to the staff of the Royal Cornwall—in fact, I spoke to someone from that hospital this morning and I know that they are very focused on this issue, as are all NHS hospitals. We have introduced information at all ports and, where necessary, screening. My hon. Friend makes an important point—it is never actually possible to put every single person through a screening process. We are one of the most open economies in the world and people constantly come in and out of the UK. We depend on public knowledge, so that people who have been to the affected areas know to present themselves to get immediate assistance if they develop any feverish symptoms.

Peter Hain: Has the Secretary of State had the chance to consult the British Medical Journal editorial of 13 October, which insisted—more than two months ago—that the Government’s airport screening policy for Ebola was illogical? I spoke to the author yesterday and he argues that we have missed the one case to have been imported while thousands, many at low risk, have been delayed, detained and made to fill in a form just because they have been to west Africa. Experts such as the author insist that what the Government should have been doing is ensuring that all those at risk, especially health workers such as Pauline, know exactly what to do if they start to feel unwell. Might it be sensible to keep health workers away from direct patient contact for 21 days after they return?

Jeremy Hunt: Perhaps I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Health care workers are kept away from direct patient work for that incubation period, so that protocol has been put in place. The BMJ article to which he refers is based, I think, on the misunderstanding that screening is the same as testing. The reality is that the tests for Ebola show up only when the virus has reached a certain level, at which point the patient will have become feverish and started displaying symptoms. So testing before that point is a waste of time. The purpose of the screening process is to identify those at highest risk so that we can make sure that they are actively monitored when they go home and that they know exactly what to do if they do develop symptoms. That is exactly what happened with Pauline Cafferkey.

Andrew Bridgen: There is a saying that when it rains everyone’s roof gets wet. That is apt in the case of Ebola which, as we have heard, poses a global threat. Does my right hon. Friend
	agree that the best way to protect the British people from the Ebola outbreak is to continue to actively support international efforts to eradicate it in west Africa itself?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. The most important thing we can do is to eliminate this disease at source, and that is why we can be extremely proud of the efforts of DFID and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As I have said, we are the country that is doing the second most in the entire world to combat the disease in west Africa. There is no better example of the link between proper development policy abroad and security at home.

Glenda Jackson: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, affording as it does an opportunity for the House to pay tribute not only to Nurse Cafferkey and all the other NHS volunteers, but the staff of the Royal Free hospital in my constituency who day in, day out demonstrate all that is best in our NHS? When the Secretary of State meets the World Health Organisation tomorrow, will he highlight a most recent report that states that, although it is possible there has been a diminution in urban areas in west Africa, rural areas in west Africa are still giving great cause for concern? There seems to be no overarching co-ordinated work in those particularly difficult areas. Will he also, as the United Kingdom was the first off the blocks to offer services to sufferers of Ebola, act as some kind of needle to the other countries in the international community that are still failing to help in the fight against this potential catastrophe?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need all countries to play their part. We have been very involved in international efforts to try to ensure that other countries, particularly in Europe, play their part as we in the UK have been doing. I commend her constituents who work at the Royal Free for their remarkable work, which really is world beating and incredibly impressive. It is also very challenging. The situation that Pauline is in is very difficult for them to cope with, but they are doing so with the highest levels of professionalism. On rural areas, DFID has been focused from the start on how to ramp up community care in rural areas. She is right to say that that is a very important priority.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Secretary of State for the tone and content of his statement. Nevertheless, I think my constituents in Kettering would have two concerns about the Pauline Cafferkey incident. First, what my constituents do not understand is why, when this health worker reported feeling unwell, caution was not prioritised and she was not tested before travelling, as we now know on a crowded underground train into the centre of London. Secondly, I understand that she travelled back to this country with quite a large number of other health workers. When an airport knows that a large number of health workers are about to descend on it, why are resources not in place to deal with quite a large number of people all in one go?

Jeremy Hunt: We have learned the lessons to speed up the process so that people, I trust, will not have to wait as long. One of the lessons we learned in the Christmas
	period is that we do not want people to have to wait as long. I want to stress to my hon. Friend—perhaps he could stress this to his constituents—that the clinical risk of contracting Ebola from sitting next to someone who is not exhibiting feverish symptoms is very low. That is why the clinical advice was, and remains, that it is perfectly safe for someone to travel on a train if they are not displaying the symptoms. We want to go further, however. We recognise that we do not know everything about this disease and therefore want to be precautionary. That is why we have said that if people in the high-risk categories—those who have had contact with Ebola patients—say they are unwell, we will have a different protocol going forward even if their temperature is within the normal range. I hope that will reassure his constituents.

Keith Vaz: The Government were absolutely right to start screening on 14 October. May I urge the Secretary of State to resist calls from those who say that screening is not effective and should stop? This was not a direct flight: it went through Casablanca. Although we have put a lot of resources into Sierra Leone and we have resources at Heathrow, there appears to be no international effort in the major hubs in Africa. What steps are going to be taken to help Governments such as that in Morocco, specifically in Casablanca, which receives so many flights from other countries in Africa that end up at Heathrow airport?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point; he has done so on a number of occasions. It is very important that there is not a weak link in the chain. We have been relatively satisfied with the screening procedures at Casablanca, which we have obviously inquired into in great detail because of the fact that Pauline came through Casablanca, but I will ask Public Health England to reassure me that it is satisfied with those screening procedures, and, if not, if there is any assistance we can provide to the Moroccan authorities.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for paying tribute not only to the British defence, NHS, Public Health England and DFID workers, but to the immense courage of Sierra Leonean, Liberian, Guinean and Nigerian health workers, as well as many others. As he said, several hundred have paid the ultimate price for their devotion to their patients. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned the health system in Sierra Leone. Will the Secretary of State, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, ensure that as much help as possible is given to the Sierra Leonean Government to strengthen their health system and avoid a collapse that could pose a great risk to the UK?

Jeremy Hunt: I can reassure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has spoken to the President of Sierra Leone about that very issue. One of the big learning points from the relative success of Nigeria, which we discussed earlier, in combating Ebola compared with Sierra Leone has been about the strength of the local health system. One particular challenge is that the entire health system in Sierra Leone is now focused on Ebola, raising the risk of other diseases, such as malaria, tuberculosis and
	HIV, killing more people even than Ebola. Strong local health care systems are an important long-term insurance policy to ensure that countries can deal with infectious diseases.

Gisela Stuart: We are still learning about Ebola and the efficacy of the screening processes. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with other European countries, particularly European Health Ministers, to share best practice, exchange what we have learned and ensure a comprehensive approach?

Jeremy Hunt: I have spoken to several European Health Ministers, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has responsibility for public health, is in regular touch with them about the international effort. The hon. Lady is right that no one country can solve this on its own, and we collaborate well with others—perhaps most closely with the French, who have taken responsibility for the fight against Ebola in Guinea.

Martin Horwood: I declare an interest, as my wife worked for Public Health England. I am sure that all PHE staff will appreciate the Secretary of State’s calm and supportive words today.
	Local directors of public health have traditionally formed part of the response to such incidents, not least in reassuring the general public—perhaps the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) as well—so is the Secretary of State confident that they still have the resources and organisational support to do this effectively now that they are part of local government, not the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: To date, no issues have been raised about resourcing for those very important responsibilities, but we will keep an eye on that. Every local area has had a resilience exercise to ensure it is prepared for what happens if someone contracts Ebola in its area, and so far we have been satisfied with the response, but obviously we will keep it under review.

Frank Roy: I understand the constraints on the availability of the ZMapp drug to fight Ebola, but is the Secretary of State really telling the House that there is nothing the Government can do to minimise those constraints?

Jeremy Hunt: If we could buy it, we would, but there is no availability internationally, and we are waiting for more supplies. We are using other experimental treatments on Pauline, and it is important to stress that we do not know whether ZMapp actually worked, but we want to do absolutely everything we can.

Margot James: I wholeheartedly support my right hon. Friend’s comments about the bravery of Pauline Cafferkey and the other health and military workers fighting Ebola in Sierra Leone. Their sacrifice and bravery humble us all. Will he confirm that the Government will continue to follow medical advice and keep a sense of perspective regarding the real threat of contagion when monitoring and setting screening policies here in the UK?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I can absolutely confirm that, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the point. It is important to say that this is not an exact science, because we do not know everything about the disease, so a balance sometimes has to be struck, but I think my discussions with Professor Paul Cosford and the chief medical officer have brought us to the right place: we follow the clear clinical guidelines, but where there is a precautionary extra step we think would be sensible in the circumstances, we take that as well.

Stewart Hosie: I place on record my thanks for the work done by Pauline Cafferkey and her colleagues and express my sympathy for the predicament in which she finds herself. I would like to thank the Secretary of State, too, for what he said about continuing to keep screening arrangements under review and looking to improve them on the basis of expert clinical advice. If recommendations emerge quickly for improvements to, or an expansion of, screening, will he move equally quickly to put those recommendations into place?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. When we have decided to change protocols, they have been changed within hours, not within days.

Diane Abbott: Pauline Cafferkey is a heroine and the thoughts of the whole House are with her and her family at this difficult time. Many people will be glad that the Secretary of State mentioned the hundreds of African health workers who have died fighting Ebola, showing extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty. Our constituents, including those linked to families in that region, will want to know that we will continue to give the region all the support we can in fighting Ebola long after it has dropped from the headlines.

Jeremy Hunt: I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. Some 382 health care workers have died from Ebola, and it is worth saying that they include not just local people from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, but people from all over Africa as well as small numbers from other parts of the world. The very least we can do is to continue to support an aid budget, which will allow them to continue to improve their local health care systems.

Barry Gardiner: The Prime Minister said over the weekend that those displaying symptoms at Heathrow would be referred straight to Northwick Park hospital in my constituency for the reason that the isolation units are based there. Those isolation units are, however, strictly limited—I think there were only six at the last count—so can the Secretary of State advise us whether back-up facilities will be put in place? Given the nature of this disease, six isolation may prove inadequate.

Jeremy Hunt: I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that isolation facilities are available at other London hospitals. The ones he mentioned happen to be the closest, so they are the ones we would use first. Let me briefly clarify that it has always been the case that if someone showed any symptoms, we would isolate them and put them into quarantine. The change in protocol I am announcing today—we enacted it last week, but I
	wanted to report it to the House at the earliest opportunity—will mean that even if someone is not displaying the symptoms but says that they are feeling a bit under the weather, they will be isolated if they are in the high-risk category.

Russell Brown: It is somewhat ironic that only a couple of days before Christmas, I wrote to the Prime Minister saying that we should fully recognise all the volunteers who leave this country to do this excellent, selfless work, putting themselves in danger—and here we are today discussing the case of Pauline Cafferkey. Everyone’s thoughts are with Pauline and her friends and family.
	I am led to believe that any problem should be dealt with at source, and there is still great concern about the amount of contaminated material, medical waste and contaminated protective equipment that is perhaps not being dealt with properly at source—being buried rather than incinerated, for example. I contacted the office of Professor Dame Sally Davies, and was told to write to her. I did so last week, asking her to look at finding a means of disposing of waste in a far better manner. So far, I have not had word back from her, but I am sure the Secretary of State will want to take this matter on board and ensure that it is dealt with better at the source of the infection.

Jeremy Hunt: To clarify the question, I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about how waste is disposed of in Sierra Leone, as we are satisfied with the way in which it is disposed of in the UK.

Russell Brown: indicated assent.

Jeremy Hunt: That being the case, I will ask the Secretary of State for International Development to write to the hon. Gentleman with her assessment of how satisfactorily that process is handled in Sierra Leone.

Louise Ellman: Will the Secretary of State tell us more about the support given across all Departments in finding treatments for Ebola, including support for the current trials being conducted by the Institute of Infection and Global Health at Liverpool university under Professor Tom Solomon?

Jeremy Hunt: We are giving strong support to that important work. Our support is being led in the Cabinet Office by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is bringing together all the Departments that can provide it. The sooner we can obtain a vaccine or a treatment that works, the better, and this could prove to be a very important part of the process of turning the tide.

Points of Order

Dan Jarvis: rose—

Brian H Donohoe: rose—

Mr Speaker: I shall come to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe). I am saving him up, which is always enjoyable.

Dan Jarvis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today the Government tabled a written statement announcing a report on the important issue of supporting veterans in the criminal justice system. I am sure that you would have been as disappointed as I was, Mr Speaker, to see conclusions from the same report published more than two weeks ago in The Sunday Telegraph and numerous other media outlets. What is more, the report was released to the press just after the House had risen for the recess. It is hard to believe that it could not have been ready in time to be presented to Members before we broke up for Christmas. The Justice Secretary has form in this regard. On 14 September last year, just after we had risen for the recess, he announced in the press plans for a victims law, about which the House was not told until three weeks later.
	May I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether it is in order for announcements on such important subjects to be released to the media before being presented to the House? If it is not, will you please use your good offices to ensure that the Justice Secretary notifies the House before making such important announcements in the future?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it.
	As I understand the position, the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims today issued a written ministerial statement informing the House that the Ministry of Justice had published a report following a review of former members of the armed forces and the criminal justice system, along with the Government’s response, on 21 December. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is preferable for significant reports to be published while the House is sitting whenever that is possible. I appreciate that, in the case of a long recess, it may well be in the public interest to publish sooner—in this instance, sooner than today. Whether it was possible to publish before we broke up for the Christmas recess I cannot myself say for certain, although I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the sequence of events and releases to the media.
	These are important matters which involve courtesies to Members of the House, of which I hope those on the Treasury Bench will wish to take note. The hon. Gentleman has put his concern on the record, and I hope that that concern is judged weighty by all in the House. We will leave it there for now.

Brian H Donohoe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At exactly 9.44 this morning, a member of my staff received an e-mail telling me that the First Minister would be in my constituency exactly 61 minutes later. I understood that there was a convention, certainly in this place,
	which ensured that if a Minister or another Member of Parliament was coming to my constituency, I would be given good notice of the fact. I also understood that there was a similar convention between us and the Scottish Parliament. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you could, at the very least, have a discussion with the Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament and try to reintroduce that convention. The First Minister’s predecessor used to provide perfectly adequate time for me to attend such events in my constituency.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I thought that he was on to an important point when he said that there was a convention “in this place”. It is my understanding that there is certainly a very strong convention in this place that if a Member is going to visit the constituency of another on official business, advance notification is offered. However, I fear that I am not aware of the veracity of the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, which concerned the existence of some sort of understanding between separate Parliaments.

Brian H Donohoe: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is nodding sagely. If there is such a convention which has generally been honoured, then there is no reason for it suddenly not to be honoured. I cannot deal with the First Minister at this stage. Whether there will be occasion to deal with him in the future, I have no idea—I have no idea whether there will be or not. If there has been a convention and it has been honoured, then it should continue to be honoured, and on a very serious note I do understand the sense of irritation the hon. Gentleman feels that what might be thought to be an expected courtesy has not been observed. That is regrettable. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) witters from a sedentary position that it has been honoured. I am afraid I regard what I have been told as an example of it not being honoured, but I am going to leave it there for today, and if the matter resurfaces, it will have to be dealt with in the appropriate way.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	In November, this House passed a Modern Slavery Bill to tackle the appalling crime of modern slavery, to pursue and prosecute those who trade in human beings for profit, and to protect and support victims. Modern slavery is just one of the many manifestations of serious and organised crime, and while organised criminals operate globally, the effects of their crimes reach deep into our communities, shattering lives and affecting us all in different ways: the pensioner who loses his life savings to a sophisticated scam; the family who have their home burgled by someone addicted to drugs; the internet user who has their credit card details stolen; the person who buys goods such as alcohol or medicines and discovers they are dangerous fakes; and people who find their insurance premiums inflated because of fraud. Organised crime can also relate to the disgusting and devastating sexual exploitation of children.
	There are over 5,500 organised criminal groups operating in the UK, with 36,000 people engaged in organised criminal activity. Organised crime is thought to cost this country at least £24 billion a year, and the cost to the UK from organised fraud is thought to be around £9 billion. It is a threat with many impacts, which must be fought on many levels. Yet, in 2010, when the Government came to power, it was clear that the response to serious and organised crime—both in policy and operational terms—was woefully lacking. So alongside our programme of radical police reform, we overhauled the response to serious and organised crime.
	The strategic policing requirement now makes clear to chief constables and police and crime commissioners that they need to work across force boundaries to address national threats, including those from organised crime and cybercrime. We have strengthened regional organised crime units so that there is an effective and cohesive response at a regional level; we have legislated to break down barriers to information-sharing between law enforcement agencies, and to toughen up penalties for those trading in illegal firearms; and in 2013 we launched a new crime-fighting body, the National Crime Agency, with the powers and mandate to task and co-ordinate law enforcement organisations and assets. In its first year of operation, the NCA led and co-ordinated numerous operations, leading to the arrests of 2,048 people in the UK and 1,181 overseas, and 415 convictions. It seized nearly 213 tonnes of drugs and over 700 firearms, and safeguarded or protected over 1,300 children. On the same day as the NCA was launched, we published our serious and organised crime strategy. It details the action we expect from across Government, agencies and partners in order to drive our collective and relentless response to organised criminality.
	Building capacity and capability at a national, regional and force level is vital, but we must also ensure that the NCA, police forces and other law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to bring offenders to justice, to deprive criminals of the proceeds of crime, and to prevent them from engaging in further criminality.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way so early in her speech. As she knows, I support the creation of the National Crime Agency and the Select Committee has recently taken evidence from Keith Bristow on his first year in office. Given the failings of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—or, to put it another way, the failure of SOCA to meet the expectations and ambitions of Parliament and Ministers—does she feel the NCA is on the right track and enough has been seized, given the figures given to the Committee and the figures she has given today and that she puts the amount of serious and organised crime at £24 billion?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the support he has shown for the National Crime Agency. I think that the agency is on the right track. There is always more that can be done, but the NCA is obviously building up its operations and capabilities. One crucial difference between the NCA and SOCA is the way in which the NCA operates with police forces around the country. There is also a clear intelligence hub at the heart of the NCA, which means that operations are being focused on the most harmful threats. In every case, a decision is taken on whether it should be a collective operation, an individual force operation or an NCA operation, and on what assets should be brought to bear in those operations.
	I shall talk about those aspects of the Bill that will strengthen our ability to get hold of criminals’ assets, as that forms an important part of the work that is being done. Criminals want to make a profit out of their activities, and the more we can do to disrupt them and to access that money, the better. Of course, there is always more that can be done. Parts 1 to 4 of the Bill deal with ensuring that we are able to give the NCA and other agencies the powers that they need to bring offenders to justice, to deprive them of the proceeds of crime and to prevent them from engaging in further criminality. Under this Government, asset recovery has been stronger than ever before. We have recovered around £746 million of criminal assets. We have returned some £93 million to victims, and denied the use of £2.5 billion-worth of assets that have been frozen by the courts. However, we can and must do even better.

Elfyn Llwyd: I fully endorse the provisions of the Bill that will make it easier to attach assets resulting from criminal behaviour. The Home Secretary referred earlier to pensioner scams, of which there have been many in my constituency recently, as well as in other parts of north Wales and in Cheshire. Sometimes we have the Cheshire police, the Greater Manchester police and the North Wales police all investigating the same crime. Surely we need better co-ordination if we are not to waste effort in such an unproductive way.

Theresa May: The way in which the National Crime Agency operates involves a decision on how best to deal with any particular organised crime group that comes to its attention. The agency works with individual police forces as well as with the regional organised crime units to ensure that assets are being used as effectively as possible against the organised crime groups. I am not saying that a situation such as the one the right hon. Gentleman describes could never happen, or that different
	forces are never involved in investigating the same crime. However, before the NCA came into being, we set up an organised crime co-ordination centre to consider precisely that issue. We do not want anyone to slip through the net, but we also do not want police officers operating against an organised crime group to be put in danger because of the operations of another force. There might be more work to be done in this regard, but there is now a much greater ability to co-ordinate, particularly through the regional organised crime units.

David Burrowes: On the point about co-ordination, we must also remember the incentive scheme that encourages the many bodies involved to investigate and to confiscate the proceeds of crime. Has the Home Office reviewed that scheme yet to see whether it needs to be revised, as was suggested to the Public Accounts Committee last year? Given that the Home Office receives 50% of those assets, despite having no operational role in the process, does the Home Secretary envisage a change being made to that percentage?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are continually looking at that issue. Indeed, the Criminal Finances Board, under the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), has looked into it.
	I want to talk about those parts of the Bill that will enable us better to access criminal assets, because that is an important part of what we do. As I said, organised criminals are primarily motivated by profit, and we need to be able to do all we can to strip them of their ill-gotten gains and send the message that crime does not pay. In part, this is about more effective enforcement, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for dealing with modern slavery and organised crime, is currently overseeing the implementation of our plan to improve the recovery of criminal assets. We must also ensure that organised criminals are not able to exploit loopholes in our legislation to frustrate asset recovery and avoid the reach of the law, which brings me to the proposals in the Bill.
	Part 1 of the Bill makes a number of significant changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. First, we are lowering the threshold for granting a restraint order—the means by which a defendant’s assets are frozen. It will now be easier to secure a restraint order immediately before effecting an arrest as the test for both will be aligned, thus removing the window of opportunity for a defendant to dissipate his or her assets. Secondly, we are halving the maximum amount of time that may be allowed by the court for payment once a confiscation order is made. That will mean that the victims of crime will receive recompense more quickly, and it will also further deprive criminals of the opportunity to live off or conceal their assets.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Gareth Johnson: rose—

Theresa May: I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary and then to my hon. Friend.

Yvette Cooper: Can the Home Secretary tell the House why, under the current legislation, the use of restraint orders to freeze assets has dropped by a third since 2010?

Theresa May: The whole point of what we have been doing, in aiming to improve our ability through the Bill to get at assets and the other work being done by the Minister with responsibility for dealing with modern slavery and organised crime, which I have described, is to ensure that every part of the legislation we have is being operated fully and properly. [Interruption.] Well, the number of orders for over a particular sum of money has in fact been about the same for the past couple of years. The shadow Home Secretary is raising a point about the legislation that the Labour party put in place—the 2002 Act. What I am saying to her is that we have looked at how these things operate to see whether we might operate them better, and I am describing to the House precisely how we are improving that.

Yvette Cooper: The point is to make sure that legislation is enforced; we all support improvements to legislation but we also want to know that it is being enforced. Can the Home Secretary explain why the number of restraint orders used to freeze assets dropped from 1,878 in 2010-11 to 1,368 in the most recent figures? Frankly, her commitment to tackling the problem of the proceeds of crime looks rather weak if all she is prepared to do is change laws but never actually enforce them.

Theresa May: The number has been dropping year on year but it is understood—the prosecution agencies believe that this is the most likely explanation—that that is due in part to the Court of Appeal judgment in the 2011 case of Windsor v.the Crown Prosecution Service. The Court ruled that suspicion that the defendant had benefited from criminal conduct was not sufficient grounds under existing legislation to grant a restraint order. That is a legal interpretation of the previous legislation—the 2002 Act—and how it was being operated by the courts. We are reducing the test from a “reasonable cause to believe” that the defendant has benefited from criminal conduct to a “reasonable suspicion”. We believe that will enable restraint orders to be applied at an earlier stage of the investigation. We have identified that a piece of legislation, as it has been operated by the courts, has had an impact that has led to a drop in the number of restraint orders, so we are addressing that in the legislation we are putting forward. I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), so I will now do so.

Gareth Johnson: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, and I welcome these measures to seize assets resulting from ill-gotten gains. As she has pointed out, the whole principle behind the measures is to ensure that crime does not pay. Will she assure the House that offenders are not able to avoid having their assets seized simply by absconding from the judicial process, by skipping bail for example? Will she assure us that that issue will be tackled?

Theresa May: Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I went through the other measures in the Bill that will strengthen our ability to deal with how, under existing legislation, offenders can sometimes make efforts to hide their assets or to ensure that that their assets are
	not available. There are a number of areas in which we need to ensure that those assets can be accessed so that somebody cannot do what my hon. Friend has said and avoid having their assets seized.

Michael Ellis: As someone who has prosecuted these matters in the Crown court and dealt with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 on many occasions, I believe that reducing the test to one of suspicion will have a considerable and positive impact on the Crown’s ability to secure more funds. Lowering the standard to that extent will clearly allow the judges greater recourse to restraint orders.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing his experience with the House. As I said earlier, it is clear that there is concern from the courts about the operation of the existing legislation, which is why it is important for us to clarify the situation so that it is easier to issue restraint orders at an earlier stage. It will now be easier to secure a restraint order immediately before effecting an arrest, as the test for both will be aligned.
	The third point about accessing assets is that the courts must have the necessary powers to ensure that a confiscation order is paid. The Bill will allow the courts to impose any restrictions or prohibitions they consider necessary as part of a supplementary “compliance order”. In particular, courts will be required to consider whether to impose an overseas travel ban on the defendant. That partly answers the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford raised earlier.
	Fourthly, we are extending the powers currently available to the National Crime Agency and other law enforcement agencies to investigate the amount and whereabouts of assets—for example to enter and search premises under warrant—so that they can also be used to trace assets once a confiscation order has been made.
	Fifthly, we are increasing the time in prison faced by those criminals who default on the payment of higher value confiscation orders, so as to deter offenders from choosing to serve time in custody rather than paying up. At the upper end of the scale, namely confiscation orders for more than £10 million, someone who defaults on payment will now face 14 years in prison compared with the current five years. That will act as a very real incentive to payment. We will review the impact of that change on offender behaviour and, if, as we expect, it leads to a greater proportion of higher-value orders being settled on time, we will consider using the order-making powers in the Bill to strengthen the default sentences for other lower-value confiscation orders.
	Finally in relation to part 1, we are bringing forward the consideration of third-party claims from the enforcement stage to the confiscation hearing. Although there are undoubtedly third parties who have a legitimate interest in assets that may be used to satisfy a confiscation order, it is often the case that spouses and other third-party associates of the defendant will submit late claims with the deliberate intention of frustrating and delaying the confiscation process. The Bill will enable the court to make a binding determination of third-party claims at the point at which the confiscation order is made, allowing the enforcement of the order to proceed more efficiently.

Maria Miller: Just before my right hon. Friend moves on, I understand why there are provisions in the Bill for confiscating assets without a conviction being needed—she has made a very powerful case for that—but, given that the provisions are quite powerful, will she also outline what she is doing to protect the civil liberties of those involved?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for declaring that the provisions in the Bill are quite powerful. The whole point is to try to increase our ability to deal with these issues. Obviously, judgments have to be made about any of the issues with which we are dealing, but until now it has been possible for people to use third-party assets and timing loopholes to ensure that their assets cannot be accessed. They can put the finances that they have made as a result of their organised crime out of the reach of the authorities.
	It is important that we tighten that and increase our ability to confiscate the assets of crime. Decisions will be made by courts as part of these processes and they will be properly considered in relation to the individuals concerned, but I am also concerned about the civil liberties of all those who are the victims of organised crime. I think that it is our job to try to ensure that we reduce organised crime as much as possible, and dealing with the assets and profits of organised crime is one way of sending a clear message to criminals and ensuring that they desist or that it becomes less attractive for them to undertake such activities.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary said something interesting about default sentences a few minutes ago. She said that if, as the Government expect, the provision raises money, they will extend it to sentences for those who owe less than £10 million. She will be aware that her party has today produced a rather dodgy dossier claiming to cost a Labour proposal that assumes that changing default sentences does not raise any extra money at all. Does she therefore think that her own dodgy dossier is nonsense?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady will have to try harder. We have indeed issued a document today that shows that the Labour party has committed to £20.7 billion of extra spending in one year alone, 2015-16. That means extra borrowing and extra debt for the future. It is no good her trying to rubbish the figures in that document. They are very clear, they have been tested and they have gone through the proper processes. The only dodgy figures come when Labour Front Benchers make all sorts of claims without funding their spending commitments.
	In part 2 of the Bill we are strengthening the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to ensure that we have robust legislation in place to tackle cybercrime. In particular, the part creates a new offence so that the most serious cyber-attacks are appropriately punished—for example, those on essential systems controlling power supplies, communications or fuel supplies. Such cyber-attacks are already an offence under section 3 of the 1990 Act and attract a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. We do not believe that that adequately reflects the harm that can be caused and the new offence therefore provides for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment when a cyber-attack leads to loss of
	life, serious illness or injury, or serious damage to national security. When the attack results in serious economic or environmental damage or social disruption, a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment would apply.
	Targeting and convicting those involved in the wider organised crime group, such as corrupt and complicit professionals, can prove difficult under current legislation. Part 3 seeks to address that. It creates a new offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group. Such activities may include services such as transporting persons or goods and providing storage facilities or, indeed, professional legal or accountancy services. Those who do that might know or at least reasonably suspect that their services are contributing to the activities of an organised crime group but choose to turn a blind eye and prefer to pretend that the business is entirely legitimate, asking no questions while taking their share of the rewards in the criminal enterprise. We must use all possible means to disrupt and dismantle organised criminal groups. The threat of prosecution and a sentence of up to five years will discourage complicit professionals and others who help such groups to function.
	Offenders must be brought to justice, but wherever possible we must prevent people from being drawn into serious and organised crime and deter them from re-engaging in criminality. Civil preventive orders have proved effective in preventing, restricting or disrupting a person’s involvement in serious crime. To support such interventions, part 3 strengthens the framework governing serious crime prevention orders and gang injunctions. Extending serious crime prevention orders to Scotland will bring the benefits of a unified regime across the whole UK. Updating the criteria for the granting of gang injunctions, which currently can be used to address only gang-related violence, will support early interventions to tackle gangs involved in the drugs market. That will allow gang injunctions to be used more widely to break down gang culture and help gang members to exit those destructive groups.
	Part 4 deals with an aspect of the illegal drugs market wherein organised crime groups substantially increase their profits from the supply of illegal drugs, particularly cocaine, by adulterating the raw product with cutting agents. Typically, drug gangs use lawfully available substances, such as benzocaine, which mimic some attributes of the illegal drugs, but there are currently no bespoke powers available to law enforcement agencies to seize, detain and destroy such cutting agents. Part 4 addresses this gap. The process will be subject to appropriate judicial oversight to ensure that the interests of any legitimate owners of suspected cutting agents are properly protected.
	Part 5 takes us into different territory. Here, we seek to strengthen the protection of children and vulnerable women. Crimes against children, especially very young children, are particularly heinous, and all the more so when they are perpetrated by the very people—their parents or carers—who are supposed to protect, nurture and love them. There has been a bespoke offence of child cruelty since 1868. It is now enshrined in section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, but the language of the offence is, in places, clearly antiquated. The Bill therefore updates section 1, in particular to make it explicit that the offence covers cruelty that causes psychological, as well as physical, suffering or harm.

David Burrowes: I commend this part of Bill, which I know has cross-party support, including from the Solicitor-General, the late Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, who played an active part in its promotion, myself and others. I welcome the updating of the Victorian language of the previous legislation and the extension to non-physical harm, but is this not an appropriate opportunity to go further and update the language on wilfulness? As I understand it, even after clause 65 is passed, the word “wilful” will remain in the legislation. Should we not take this opportunity to remove the word “wilful” and to make it clear that it should equate to recklessness? That already applies in case law and it should also apply in statute.

Theresa May: I believe that the proposals we have put forward are appropriate, but my hon. Friend makes a serious point, which I assume reflects some of his legal experience. I am willing to take that point away and have a further look at it, but I think the proposals in the Bill as we have set them out are sufficient to ensure that we are able to update the offence on the statute book and make sure it covers all types of harm to young people.

Meg Munn: May I suggest that, because this is a complex area and there are questions about recklessness and wilfulness as well as neglect, the Home Secretary will want to consider whether guidelines should be issued after the Bill is enacted, to make sure that prosecutors and all professionals are clear about the Government’s and Parliament’s intentions?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suggestion. Crown Prosecution Service guidelines are already in existence. The CPS will want to make sure that the guidelines are appropriate to the changes we make, so that people are aware of the changes in what, as she says, can be a tricky area when it comes to definitions and determinations in such cases.
	A particular form of cruelty inflicted on some young girls is genital mutilation. There is absolutely no cultural, religious or any other justification for female genital mutilation. It has no place in this country, or indeed anywhere else in the world, and the Government are committed to eradicating the practice. The Bill as originally introduced included an extension of our ability to take jurisdiction over FGM offences committed abroad. At the girl summit last July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I undertook to bring forward a number of further legislative changes to tackle FGM in this country, and these were added to the Bill in the House of Lords.
	First, to encourage victims to come forward, the Bill now provides for lifelong anonymity from the point at which an allegation is made. Secondly, to target those parents who allow this dreadful practice to be inflicted on their daughters, we have now provided for a new offence of failure to protect a girl from the risk of FGM. Thirdly, to stop FGM being inflicted on a girl in the first place, we have now provided for FGM protection orders, which are modelled on and build on the success of forced marriage protection orders.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Theresa May: May I make a little more progress?
	In July, we announced a range of other measures, including the creation of a new cross-Government FGM unit to work with criminal justice agencies, children’s services, health care professionals and affected communities. I hope that, together, these measures, including the changes to criminal and civil law, will help to tackle this appalling practice.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Theresa May: I have been very generous in accepting interventions. If I am going to accept my hon. Friend’s intervention, I should first accept that of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).

Fiona Mactaggart: In preventing FGM, will the Home Secretary consider the provision of refuge places for girls who are at risk? These girls are frightened of reporting this or talking to a doctor, and their families are putting them under pressure. They need refuge, and in my experience Britain currently has inadequate refuge places for any woman who is at risk of violence.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady makes a point not just about FGM but more generally about refuges. Before Christmas, the Government announced the availability of a further £10 million for refuges as a recognition of the valuable work they do, particularly in relation to women who are leaving a domestic environment where they have been subject to domestic abuse. On female genital mutilation, it is important to ensure that the young people involved are aware of what they are able to do in order to escape this danger. It is also important that we send out very strong messages from this place, and generally, about the fact that it is a criminal act that we are not willing to accept in this country, and that we will make every effort we can to ensure that we eradicate the practice.

William Cash: I commend my right hon. Friend and the Government for this incredibly important provision and the manner in which it has been handled in the House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who is away at the moment, is chairman of the all-party group on FGM, of which I am also a member. We wonder whether it will be possible to insert in Committee arrangements ensuring that where the court makes an order it should protect a girl against not only the commission of, but the risk of commission of, a genital mutilation offence. I will deal with that when, I hope, I speak subsequently in this debate. Will my right hon. Friend be interested in listening to those arguments?

Theresa May: I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend says about this later and the detail that I am sure he will fill in. We are addressing the whole question of the risk that an individual may face from female genital mutilation in the new offence of failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM. It is important that those who have responsibility for these young girls and are aware of what might be happening recognise that they need to do something to ensure that the individual is not at risk and is not put through FGM. I look forward to hearing the arguments that my hon. Friend will advance later in relation to his point.
	Part 5 of the Bill includes another child protection measure in making it an offence to possess so called paedophile manuals—material that contains practical advice on how to commit a sexual offence against a child. It beggars belief that such things actually exist, but regrettably the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, a command of the National Crime Agency, has seen a number of examples. That being the case, it is right that we act to outlaw the possession of such material. In doing so, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has campaigned assiduously on the issue.
	If there are other gaps in child protection legislation, we are determined to take the necessary action to safeguard those at risk of harm. That is why last month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we will amend the Bill to make it an offence for an adult to communicate sexually with a child. Many hon. Members have supported the campaign by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I pay tribute to them for highlighting this gap in the law.
	Before leaving this part of the Bill, I confirm that we will table amendments in Committee to strengthen the protection afforded to the victims of domestic abuse. As the House knows, over the summer the Home Office ran a consultation seeking views on whether a specific offence was needed to criminalise coercive or controlling behaviour in intimate personal and family relationships, and 85% of respondents agreed that the law in this area needed to be strengthened. With over 1 million calls for assistance to the police each year for domestic abuse-related incidents, but only 78,000 prosecutions, it is clear that the criminal justice response to domestic abuse is woefully inadequate. The new offence will provide an additional charging option where there is a pattern of non-violent controlling conduct, the cumulative impact of which can be no less traumatic for the victim.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Theresa May: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me the next sentence.
	I am aware that a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), have campaigned for the introduction of such an offence. I pay tribute to Members who have brought this important matter to the attention of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman still wish to intervene?

Elfyn Llwyd: I want to say that I am delighted by what the Home Secretary has said. I thank her for her preparedness to discuss the matter over the past few weeks, and I am grateful for this move forward. As always, the devil is in the detail, but I am greatly encouraged by her comments.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the interest he has taken in this subject and the way he has pursued it.
	Finally, the Bill will close a gap in our current legislation in relation to terrorism. Clause 72 extends the reach of the UK courts so that those who prepare or train for terrorism abroad can be prosecuted should they return to this country. As the House is aware, a significant number of UK nationals or residents have travelled to
	Syria and Iraq to take part in the conflicts in those countries. We face the very serious threat that those fighters may seek to return to the UK and carry out attacks or radicalise people here. Extending extra-territorial jurisdiction for the offences in sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorism Act 2006 will bolster our law enforcement agencies’ ability to protect the public—but we will need to do more. Later this week, the House will have the opportunity again to debate the wider provisions of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which is designed to disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight and to counter the underlying ideology that feeds and supports terrorism. Given the immediacy of this threat, we will bring forward amendments in Committee to provide for the provisions in clause 72 of this Bill to come into force on Royal Assent.
	Before I conclude, I want to advise the House of one further amendment that we will bring forward in Committee. The use of unauthorised mobile phones in prison poses a significant threat to prison security, as well as affording prisoners the opportunity to continue engaging in serious and organised crime while serving their sentence. While significant effort is put into tackling this problem within prisons, physically detecting handsets, let alone SIM cards, is clearly challenging given the ease with which they can be hidden. We need to find a more cost-effective way of denying prisoners the use of mobile phones. Our amendment will therefore confer a power on the civil courts to require mobile network operators to disconnect unauthorised mobile phones in use in prison.

Alan Beith: The Home Secretary has not found time in her speech to mention the provision on the possession of knives in prison, which ensures that that can be dealt with by the courts. Alongside the Attorney-General’s willingness to prosecute when prison officers are threatened with knives, that is very welcome.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend highlights another important aspect of the Bill. When this was first brought to my attention, it seemed strange to me that the use of knives in prisons could not be dealt with in the same manner as the use of knives in other scenarios in public places. As he says, we have done the right thing in bringing that into the Bill.
	The Bill contains a range of measures to protect the public from those who would do them harm. It will give law enforcement agencies and the courts greater powers to strip criminals of their ill-gotten gains and to prosecute those who support and benefit from organised crime, and ensure that no one is beyond the reach of the law. It will enhance the protection of vulnerable women and children who face violence and abuse at the hands of the very people who should care for them most. It will close a gap in our current terrorism legislation. Together, these measures will help law enforcement agencies to keep the public safe and secure. There can be no greater aspiration than that, and I believe it is an objective that all right hon. and hon. Members can support. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Yvette Cooper: We welcome many of the measures in the Bill and we will support it tonight, but as a policy to tackle
	serious crime in Britain, it is still too weak. Rightly, it has been improved in the other place as a result of strong campaigning for amendments to be added, but more still needs to be done. As a final Bill for this Parliament, it is not ambitious enough to deal with the serious crime challenges that face Britain today.
	Crime is changing and the criminal justice system is still not keeping up. The challenge from serious crime is increasing, not falling, and more needs to be done. Violent crime is increasing, yet fewer violent crimes are being prosecuted or convicted. More sexual offences are being reported, but fewer are reaching conviction. Reported rapes and domestic violence are increasing, yet fewer are reaching conviction. Far fewer drugs are being seized on their way into this country, and online crime is escalating exponentially and the police are not equipped to keep up. The problem is getting worse, not better, and the criminal justice system under the Home Secretary is not keeping up.
	The measures are welcome, but they do not address the scale of the problem that we face. Let me deal with the measures in turn and highlight the areas in which the Government need to go further. The Government must stop the clock turning backwards. We have supported from the start the extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction for the two offences under the Terrorism Act 2006, preparation of terrorist acts and training for terrorism. We argued from the start, however, that the Home Secretary would need to go further, restore the relocation powers that she abolished in terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and strengthen Prevent. We will discuss those further measures later this week in the context of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, in which she has had to do exactly that.
	We support the measures on accessing child pornography but believe that much more needs to be done to tackle this growing crime. I will come on to that in a moment. We support the measures to tighten the law on hacking and to address the international challenge that online crime poses. We welcome in particular more action to stop criminals benefiting from the proceeds of their crimes—something for which we have been calling for some time. Members in all parts of the House will agree, I think, that we should recover the proceeds of crime. Ill-gotten gains should not furnish the lifestyle of a criminal, in some cases long after their sentence has concluded. Wherever possible, there should be recompense to victims of crime, who have often lost so much.

Stephen Barclay: Will the right hon. Lady clarify whether the Opposition would support in Committee or on Report measures relating to the disclosure of beneficial ownership of UK property owned by offshore companies, which is one of the ways that assets are held, and unexplained wealth orders, along the lines of those used in Guernsey, to allow law enforcement officers more time than they currently have? Those two measures are excluded from the Bill.

Yvette Cooper: We support a series of measures where we think the Government should go further. We will table amendments in Committees and we will probe the detail of the Government’s legislation. I am happy to talk further to the hon. Gentleman about the details of those issues, as they are immensely important.
	There are areas where we should do more to take back from criminals the assets that they have stolen from victims of crime right across the country. The aspects that we highlighted in the past related to preventing criminals from switching their assets to family and friends and getting away with it, and toughening sentences to deal with the problem of people serving only short sentences, even though they were continuing to squirrel away huge illegal gains. We support the measures to give more powers to the courts to tackle so-called designer divorces and third parties keeping hold of assets, and we support plans to require offenders to pay swiftly. The Government accept that more can still be done and we will probe this further in Committee.

Ian Paisley Jnr: What has the shadow Home Secretary got to say about those people in Northern Ireland who make a packet out of smuggling fuel and counterfeit vodka, which was described in the Sunday Independent this week as a multi-million pound vodka moonshine operation by the IRA? People such as Mr Murphy and Mr Hughes, who operate in the border area, have never been put in jail and have never been prosecuted for such activity, yet they are at it at large. What can be done to put those people where they deserve to be?

Yvette Cooper: Wherever racketeering and exploitation take place, action should be taken to tackle those serious crimes. It is a problem that we highlighted from the beginning, when the legislation for the National Crime Agency was drawn up, but Northern Ireland is not covered by the work of the National Crime Agency. That continues to be a challenge and to cause problems.
	If we can increase the resources taken from the proceeds of crime, that will help victims and also help to improve and support the criminal justice system. I welcome the Home Secretary’s comment today that she believes the Bill will raise additional resources and will save money, and that she will consider extending the relevant measure to those who owe less than the £10 million provided for in the Bill. That is the same policy that she claimed this morning would cost £19 million, and her own document claimed would not save any money at all because it assumed that no one would change their behaviour. So she said one thing at noon and something completely different at 5.30 in the afternoon, and undermined her claims from this morning.
	Many other aspects of the Bill have been added as a result of strong campaigns and amendments put forward or supported by Labour in the Lords and by many Members across this House. We welcome, for example, the three new clauses and new schedules added in the Lords for stronger action against the appalling and barbaric crime of female genital mutilation that takes place against young girls. We have called for stronger prevention orders and are glad that they are included, as well as the measures on anonymity for victims and stronger responsibility. I pay tribute to some of the campaign groups which have worked so hard, as well as hon. Members who have pursued the issues. We will look further at the detail in Committee.

Keith Vaz: There is all-party support for the actions taken by the Government. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that despite the legislation and the political willingness to get something done on FGM,
	there have been only two prosecutions in relation to FGM? This needs to change. The prosecution authorities need to understand the seriousness of the issue.

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. It is a matter not just of the legal framework, but of making sure that the law is enforced. We must ensure that the law is strong enough and that prosecution authorities, the police and authorities at every level, including schools and other organisations, are properly aware of the seriousness of the crime and of the risks to young girls in this country, and are prepared and ready to take action to tackle this awful crime.

William Cash: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the problems has been that front-line workers are uncertain when they may report matters? That is the objective with which I will deal in my remarks later. Will she give a sympathetic hearing to that approach?

Yvette Cooper: We will certainly do so. I am happy to talk further to the hon. Gentleman about the matter. We, too, have spoken about the issues surrounding mandatory reporting not only of female genital mutilation, but of child abuse more widely. There is a strong case for making sure that professionals across the board are aware of the serious damage being done to young people as a result of these awful crimes.
	We welcome the proposals to strengthen the law on domestic abuse. I pay tribute to Women’s Aid and Paladin, which have campaigned for the strengthening of the law so that it recognises the cumulative impact of different forms of psychological abuse, as well as physical abuse, and the way that that can trap women in particular and men in abusive relationships, causing huge harm to them, their families and the children. We look forward to discussing the clauses in detail.
	On protection for children, I pay tribute to Action for Children for its campaign to strengthen the law on child cruelty, and to the campaign by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and by Lord Harris, who argued, with our support in the other place, that the Bill should include a new offence of sending a sexual message to a child.
	As an overall response to the scale of serious crime, however, the Bill does not yet go far enough, because crime is changing and serious crime is a grave and growing problem. Over the decades there has been a welcome fall in the number of high-volume crimes, including most theft offences, domestic burglaries and car crimes, but the number of many of the most serious crimes is going up. Reported rapes continue to rise at about 30%, yet new figures show that the number of arrests has gone down by 8%. Arrests as a proportion of recorded rapes have dropped from 90% to 63% in the past few years. That is completely unacceptable. Violent crime is also increasing, but prosecutions and convictions are falling.
	On sexual offences, the Home Secretary sometimes refers to a Yewtree effect and historic offences, but that is not the case, because the latest figures show that the majority of the increase in reported sexual offences
	has occurred in the previous 12 months. Reported child sex offences are perhaps one of the most troubling areas of all.

Paul Beresford: Does not the right hon. Lady accept—I hope she does—that people are reporting because suddenly they have an opportunity to do so and are going to be taken seriously? That was not the case before, and the issue was discussed when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was put through by a Labour Government.

Yvette Cooper: The honest truth is that we do not know what is happening to underlying prevalence, but we do know that reporting has increased. I have been very careful to talk about the reporting of rape: reports of rapes and sexual offences have increased. We want more people to come forward and report crimes because we know that many of them have been underreported. However, the serious problem is that, although more cases are being reported, fewer cases are being prosecuted and reaching conviction. I am not talking about a simple proportion of crimes: these are absolute numbers. Fewer rape arrests are taking place even though more rapes have been reported to the criminal justice system. That is a serious weakness and I am concerned about what is happening in the criminal justice system and policing under this Government.

Paul Beresford: The right hon. Lady ought to look at the Committee stage of the 2003 Act, where a Labour Government, with assistance from the then Opposition, considered that very point and the extreme difficulty involved. Before she tables any amendments, I ask her please to read that Hansard report. The issue was faced then.

Yvette Cooper: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that we want more rapes to be reported, because we know they are underreported at the moment. It is significant that, over many years under a Labour Government, we saw an increase in arrests, prosecutions and convictions, both for serious sexual offences and for domestic violence. Over the past few years we have seen a drop in the proportion of domestic violence offences reaching conviction and a drop in the number of rape arrests and prosecutions for the most serious sexual offences. That is a serious problem. Those numbers are not falling because the number of crimes is falling. The situation is quite the reverse: they are falling because the criminal justice system and policing under this Government are not able to deal with the scale of the problem and are not conducting sufficient investigations or taking sufficient action.
	For example, the number of child abuse prosecutions has fallen from 9,235 in 2010-11 to 7,998 in 2013-14, at a time when more child sex offences have been reported to the police. The number of prosecutions has fallen and there are 800 fewer convictions as a result. That means that more abusers and dangerous criminals are getting away with it. That is a serious concern.
	Where in this Bill are the national standards we need and the commissioner to tackle violence against women and girls? Where is the policy for mandatory reporting of child abuse and for compulsory sex and relationship education to prevent abuse in the next generation? Where is the policy to ban the use of community
	resolutions for domestic violence so that cases are not diverted to inappropriate apologies rather than taken through the courts? Where is the policy to stop people with a history of domestic violence owning a gun? The Government could introduce so many more policies, but they are not included in the Bill.
	Where is the action to enforce the existing law? It is a serious concern that the child abuse inquiry, which has already been stopped twice by chaos over the chairs, is still not established on a firm footing and it is taking the Home Secretary months to work out how to give it the full powers it needs. This is extremely important and it is incomprehensible why it is taking her so long to get it established on a proper footing.
	Where, too, is the action to tackle some of the most serious offences of all? I am particularly concerned about the rapidly escalating problem of online child abuse. The Bill includes some measures, which we welcome, but I have pressed the Home Secretary repeatedly to do more and to level with Parliament about the scale of the problem and the challenges that the police and agencies face in addressing it, and so far she has repeatedly refused to do so. She knows that the National Crime Agency has details of between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of online child abuse through Operation Notarise alone, yet she has refused to confirm that figure and so too—I presume under her instruction—has the NCA. Why is that? Surely we have a right to know the scale both of that crime and of the information given to the NCA, so that we can debate the Bill’s measures and whether they are sufficient. Evidence from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre shows that a significant proportion of those who engage in online abuse go on to commit contact abuse.
	The number of arrests under Operation Notarise so far totals just over 700 out of more than 20,000. How many of those 19,300 cases could be involved in contact abuse? When will those cases be investigated? The police and the NCA have briefed the media that not all of them will or can be investigated, but is that true? The Home Secretary ought to tell the House as part of the debate on this Bill. Even if they are eventually investigated, how long would it take?
	There have already been unacceptable delays in Project Spade, an international operation that caught more than 2,300 people purchasing online child abuse imagery. Their information was passed to CEOP by Toronto police in July 2012, but it was not disseminated to police forces until November 2013. That intelligence included information on Myles Bradbury, who was arrested in December 2013 on the basis of Project Spade but who had abused children in the period when no intelligence was being passed on. There can be no repeat of the Myles Bradbury case, yet the long delays in investigating cases under Operation Notarise risk doing exactly that. I urge the Home Secretary to tell us what the figures are, how long the delays are, how many of the cases have not yet been investigated and how many children could potentially be at risk by the failure to do so.

Sarah Champion: I am sure my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary are aware that one of the reasons for the delays is that the search engines are charging between £50 and £80 for the information and the police simply do not have the resources for that.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. If there are such obstacles and delays, Parliament needs to address them. We should be taking action to make sure that the police and the NCA can take the necessary action to protect children and investigate these extremely serious crimes. However, it is very difficult for us to do that if we do not have the full facts about the scale of the problems, the extent of the delays and the problems that may be building up for the future. It is simply not fair on those who may be vulnerable victims of these crimes for us not to act when we know that the information is there and we could be pursuing it.
	Finally, the wider issue of cybercrime is another area where the Government need to be more ambitious in their strategy. Adrian Leppard, the commissioner of the City of London police, has said that
	“this nature of crime is rising exponentially.”
	It is estimated that more than 12.5 million people have fallen victim to cybercrime in a 12-month period in the United Kingdom, yet the commissioner of the City of London police told the Home Affairs Committee that a quarter of the 800 specialist internet crime officers could be axed as spending is cut. Already there are too few people in the police who have the expertise to pursue these rapidly escalating crimes. We do not want the clock being turned backwards on the expertise we have. Quite the opposite: we need to make sure we get greater expertise in the police. We will table amendments on that, including to ask the Sentencing Council to review sentencing guidelines for e-crimes. For example, Anonymous hackers who cost PayPal more than £3.5 million were given sentences of between seven and 18 months, considerably less than what they would have been given if they had committed a physical crime to the value of the same amount.
	This Bill and the action taken by the Government are not strong enough. The Government are not yet doing enough to tackle the rise of serious crimes—cybercrime, violent crime, domestic violence, rape, child sex offences—or to protect victims. The Home Secretary has been far too complacent about the drops in volume crimes. We all welcome such falls, but the rise in serious crimes is too often ignored. She needs to do far more to act against the rise in serious crimes, particularly in relation to the protection of children, which is her responsibility.
	So far, the Bill has been improved during its passage through Parliament, but it has not yet been improved enough. As it passes through this House, we must improve and strengthen it if victims are not to be let down.

Stephen Hammond: I am delighted to contribute to the discussion of this multifaceted Bill. I am probably not regarded as one of the normal Home Office specialists, but this multifaceted Bill covers several areas that extend beyond the usual Home Office remit, and I particularly want to speak about the world of economics and our international relations.
	The serious and organised crime strategy rightly sets out how we should respond to an ever-present, ever-evolving and ever-developing threat, particularly in the area of cybercrime. The importance of the Bill is that it recognises the strategy and gives legislative effect to such points. In my short speech, I want to look at some of the economic and international concerns that arise from cybercrime
	and how the Bill will help. Others more expert than I am will talk about the recovery of the proceeds of crime, the abuse of chemical substances—that very important matter was not mentioned by either Front-Bench speaker—and obviously, domestic cruelty to children, FGM and the possession of weapons in prison.
	Part 2 goes to the heart of what we should be looking at because it covers the area of crime that is expanding exponentially, as the shadow Home Secretary rightly said. The national security strategy has identified that hostile attacks on UK cyberspace by other states and those involved in organised crime now represent a tier 1 threat to national security. As has been recognised, it is of paramount concern that cybercrime is a threat to national security, and it is obviously welcome that the Government are putting £860 million into the national cyber-security programme. Given the expansion of cybercrime, there will of course be real concerns about ensuring that those resources go into assessing how such a crime is evolving and how we should tackle it.

Stephen Barclay: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that resource allocation is very opaque? The Treasury produced a report for the Cabinet Secretary in the last quarter of last year suggesting that 90% of spending on extremism happens domestically and only 10% internationally. On the very important threat that he is articulating, does he think that Parliament has sufficient transparency at the moment in relation to where the money is going, and to what extent is it being spent on adapting to new threats as opposed to dealing with traditional ones?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We should recognise that the Government are spending that money and are committed to looking at the specific law enforcement challenges of cybercrime, but we must also consider the economic consequences of that crime.
	Particularly through organised crime, but also by foreign state activity, there can be a breakdown of networks, such as those for electricity, telecoms, power, banking, and food and fuel distribution. Everything relies on those logistical systems. Only today, companies have announced that their online retailing is now stronger than their direct retailing, and only today, there have been comments about the amount of money lost in banking fraud. Online retail and on-time logistics are clearly areas of potential attack, and the paralysis of such networks as a result of cyber-attacks is not just a security risk, but probably the most significant and serious threat to our economy except for world economic factors.
	If those networks come under criminal control, even for a relatively short period, there would be not only grand-scale theft, fraud and illegal drug dealing, but a cost that would dwarf the figure of £24 billion, which the Home Secretary rightly remarked last year was the cost of organised crime to this country. I say “dwarf”, because daily banking transactions in the UK alone probably total five or perhaps 10 times that amount.
	The potential for crime is huge, so it is absolutely right for the national cyber-security programme to break down cybercrime into its two parts: cyber-dependent
	crimes, which can be committed only by using computers and computer networks; and the even more significant cyber-enabled crimes, which can be committed offline and online.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I am sure that he agrees that many provisions in the Bill will strengthen the law on cybercrime, but does he share my concern that, as some the statistics perhaps show, business also needs to take cybercrime more seriously than it has in the past?

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Any number of reports in the past six months have found that major companies have not helped Governments either to assess the risks to their own networks, which creates a national risk, or to assess the threat from organised crime, which leads to serious risks not just to such companies, but to individuals. A number of companies should accept their responsibilities in that area.
	The Bill is very important because of the sheer expansion in the potential for cybercrime. Sections 1 to 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 clearly set out ways to deal with unauthorised access, but the provisions of that Act are now simply too limited. What was relevant in 1990 is no longer relevant, and the pace of change in equipment and software capability requires a significant updating of the response. Economically, part 2 is a singularly important part of the Bill. It accepts that the current law is hopelessly inadequate, and puts in place a new offence in relation to unauthorised acts
	“causing, or creating risk of, serious damage”.
	The Home Secretary set out that that applies not only to the area of economics, but in other areas, such as security and the environment.
	Simply in the area of economics, such crimes are so serious that they could wreck—that is not too strong a word—the whole economy. It is therefore hugely important that the Bill covers unauthorised acts in relation to computers that result in serious damage. The definition of “serious damage” has rightly been left somewhat opaque, because some of the information inside banking systems would be difficult to assess, but the Bill rightly recognises how far the world has moved since the 1990 Act.
	It is clearly right for the Home Secretary to include protections in the Bill. The need to establish a significant link to the UK is now clear—for example, one of the accused, the target computer system or the damage must be in the UK or, if the attack is from abroad, the accused must have been a UK national at the time of the attack and there must be a similar offence in the relevant country. That provides relative protection while putting in place the right measures to enable law enforcement agencies to tackle this crime. There has been some detailing of the need to upgrade sentencing, and the Bill also recognises that the 1990 Act fails to deal with the seriousness of such crimes. It therefore rightly imposes life imprisonment for serious injury or death, while a sentence of 14 years applies for serious economic damage.
	The potential to commit cybercrime, and the manner in which is it committed, is constantly evolving, and it is right for the new offence to recognise that and the seriousness of its effects. It is also true that whatever we
	do in the UK—our attempts to extend protection extra-territoriality in the Bill are important—it simply will not be enough. Much of cybercrime is international, and although like many in the House I am hugely concerned about the onward march of certain areas of the EU into our lives, no sensible person would set their face against international co-operation.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case about the need to focus on cybercrime. Will he endorse the work done by Europol in that area, which is essential to try to deal with countries and individuals—some of these crimes are committed by countries—that seek to engage in cyber-wars?

Stephen Hammond: I accept the validity of the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and in a moment he will see how much I support what he has just said. We have largely recognised the validity of the EU directive, although there are still two aspects to introduce. That will help the powers of this country by ensuring that we can attack UK nationals who are intending to attack the UK from other EU countries, by extending the legal basis to prosecute an EU national for offences under sections 1 to 3A of the 1990 Act, when the offence is committed outside the UK. The fact that the Bill contains that international dimension will help our ability to co-operate with Europol. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee pointed out, there is widespread acceptance of the internationality of such crimes, and that will only increase. It is, therefore, of ever-increasing importance to the whole world to note which states are not prepared to signify their willingness to co-operate, and it will be a test of resolve for a number of countries across the world as to whether they are prepared to accept that co-operation and the basic premise of the EU directive.
	Part 6 of the Bill addresses a number of miscellaneous aspects, and the point about foreign fighters continues the theme of the Bill’s internationality and what it does to counter serious crime and terrorism internationally. No one in the United Kingdom can possibly have missed the reference to foreign fighters and UK individuals, and in many cases that seems to have concentrated exclusively on Syria because of the scale and length of that conflict. However, the case for us to counter foreign fighters and their threat to UK security must not be exclusively based on the conflict in that country, and like many I accept the premise that we must tackle the issue at its source. The Home Secretary’s actions on that are to be commended, as is the continuing commitment to the Prevent strategy. The need to continue thinking about how we use reformed foreign fighters—if there is that possibility—to deter others, and the pressure to dissuade people from travelling, remains as imperative as ever.
	There is, however, a gap in our legislative position and protection, and this Bill is serious, strong and a big step forward because it implements powers that will allow us to fill that gap. The measures will ensure that law enforcement partners can prosecute individuals with links to the UK and those who seek to harm the UK, from wherever they are prepared to commit that act of terrorism. Such measures also affect those who have been trained abroad for terrorist purposes more generally, and we can now prosecute those crimes as if they had
	taken place in the UK. While everybody accepts that evidentially it is sometimes difficult to do that, the fact that the prosecution will be in the public interest and require the express consent of the Attorney-General puts in place the appropriate balance and gives law enforcement agencies that are tackling terrorism a huge new opportunity to use that extension of the law. That is right because making it a criminal act to prepare and train people for terrorism abroad will be widely welcomed, and we should commend such a measure.
	One part of the Bill will make a huge difference to almost all of us across our constituencies. I represent one of the safest London constituencies in one of the safest London boroughs, and I cannot claim that gang crime is prevalent or widespread. Nevertheless, youth gangs have already made several attempts to set up organisations in my constituency, and drug dealing gangs come from other parts of London and have used an estate in my constituency to carry out their crimes. Measures in the Bill on gang-related crime will improve the quality of life for our constituents.
	The increased flexibility of “what is a gang?” will help address some of the limitations of definition and locality currently in law by recognising that individuals do not necessarily need a gang emblem, name, colour or anything else to operate, but can work as a collection of individuals who participate together to commit a crime. Gangs can move across boroughs and localities across the country, and strengthening the law in that area will be widely welcomed not only by the police but by us as Members of Parliament when we see our constituents enjoy a better quality of life. In many cases the Bill will reduce the threat of criminality on the street corner, and it will inevitably attack those people—often young men—who may be tempted to be inveigled into a life of criminality that blights lives for so many thereafter.
	I am fortunate to have been called early in the debate and to make a brief contribution. The Bill is significant because it accepts that there is an evolving threat, particularly in online and cybercrime, and it contains measures to address that.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) who has brought a great deal of expertise on cybercrime to the House. As we approach the last 12 weeks before Parliament must be dissolved, some might have thought that the temperature would have risen. However, we have a crime Bill that will pass through the House of Commons not unchallenged by the Opposition, but with their support and that of all the other parts of the United Kingdom. That is a recognition of the fact that we are dealing with very serious issues on which there is common ground. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and support the Government’s agenda, with the caveats expressed by the shadow Home Secretary in such a constructive way. I am not quite saying that peace has broken out, but it is good to see Parliament working together on an issue of such importance.
	This would be a Christmas tree Bill, but we have passed Christmas and are now in the new year—I am not sure what the parliamentary term is for so many different parts of the Home Office’s agenda put into one Bill.

Elfyn Llwyd: The “next Christmas” Bill.

Keith Vaz: The “next Christmas” Bill—perhaps that is right although, sadly, the right hon. Gentleman will not be with us in the House next Christmas. Having won his great concession from the Home Secretary and been praised for his campaigning work, he is departing from us and we will be the poorer for it.
	I have counted at least 10 major areas—not just 10 things that the Government propose to change—that the Home Secretary has included in the Bill as areas that need to be changed, and I welcome them all. My only problem is that I do not think we have enough time in the 12 weeks before the election campaign to give the Bill proper scrutiny and table any amendments.
	I start with an area on which there is strong agreement—female genital mutilation. I welcome what the Home Secretary has done. She has made FGM one of the features of her term as Home Secretary. Her Bill amends the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and makes a number of changes that the Home Affairs Committee welcomes—the Committee recommended many of them, and many were suggested by the Opposition, so this is an example of Parliament at its best.
	I support all the changes proposed, and I think the House will support them, but one important part of the Committee’s report—the focus on the medical profession—is missing. When we conducted our inquiry and published our report, we looked carefully at how things are done in France. It is not fashionable in the House to talk about the great things that are done in other countries, but France has it right. France has brought multiple prosecutions against those involved in female genital mutilation. We have managed only two, and there have been no convictions since the Act came into force.
	I hope this is considered by the Home Secretary and those in Committee. The Home Affairs Committee highlighted the need to focus on the medical profession, as the shadow Home Secretary said. That is missing from the Bill. The medical profession—health workers and those in the medical profession—is very much the front line. The Committee thought that we should go down the road of making the failure to report a criminal offence. That is not in the Bill, and we need to look carefully at the lack of mandatory sanction on those who would discover FGM first—health workers and doctors.
	The Committee was not overly impressed with the evidence we received from the medical profession. We thought that hiding behind confidentiality as a means of not wanting to tell anybody that a young girl had suffered from FGM was not enough. We believe that the profession understands the seriousness of FGM, but that it was hampered by its professional standing. We should go some way to addressing that. I hope we do so when looking at training and mandatory reporting.
	At the end of the day, we need more prosecutions. The only prosecutions so far were brought under the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, and not under the previous one. They occurred three days before she appeared before the Home Affairs Committee to answer questions on FGM. I am sure that that was just a coincidence, but the fact is that it is important that we ensure more prosecutions. I am not
	commenting on that particular case, but prosecutions are not enough; we need convictions. That is the best way to send a strong message to the community and those involved in FGM.
	I welcome all that the Home Secretary suggests in the organised crime part of the Bill. She mentioned human trafficking in her speech, but not immigration—I know she cannot mention everything on Second Reading. When the Committee went to Calais and talked to some of those vulnerable migrants who had made their way from Eritrea, through north Africa and across the Mediterranean and into Calais, we were struck by the numbers who had paid to go there. Two individuals from Pakistan had each paid €7,000 to get to Calais from Pakistan and were prepared to pay the extra €5,000 to get from Calais to live in London, which was their ambition. There is big money in immigration and illegal migration. Those who profit manage to get away with the fact that it happens beyond our borders. We should look carefully at the stories of the ships in the Mediterranean—I mentioned the story of the Ezadeen in Home Office Questions. People admit to paying huge amounts of money to get on ships, and the crew either disappears or hides among passengers. A lot of money is made out of migration, just as a lot of money is made out of drugs, and we should we look carefully at that aspect of organised crime.
	I welcome everything that is being done on child protection. I commend the work done so assiduously by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) since her election to the House. She has been a champion for the victims of crime—the children who cannot speak for themselves. It is not necessarily to do with legislation, but with the architecture and the way in which the Home Secretary has addressed child protection. She was right to announce the big inquiry and right to come before the House and say that she was sorry that its two chairs had decided to stand down. She did so in a dignified way. She put the victims at the centre of the inquiry, but it now has no chair.
	A copy of the Home Secretary’s latest letter to the panel members has not been passed to the Home Affairs Committee. Given that we are doing the confirmation hearing, that must be a mistake and I look forward to receiving it. Two of the child protection options in the letter involve the panel being disbanded in some way. We have an odd situation. The panel meets weekly—or at least it was doing so until December—and does its work without a chair. It is now told that the Home Secretary might have changed her mind and is being asked its views on whether it should be disbanded. The Home Secretary took an important stand last July and made an important and eloquent statement last December, but I am afraid that we are degenerating. I would not say it is a shambles, but let us say it is a cause for concern. The Committee has 11 weeks to sit before 30 March. We need to know the name of the Home Secretary’s preferred candidate. We have no candidate and cannot do a confirmation hearing. We need that name so that we can start our work.
	We also look forward—this is not in the Bill—to hearing the name of the new chief of the UK Border Agency, because we would like to interview him or her before they take up their position.
	I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposals on preparation and training abroad for terrorism. Some of the measures should have been included in the Counter-terrorism and
	Security Bill, but let us not be churlish. They are in the Bill and are to be welcomed.
	The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is right on cybercrime. As the Home Affairs Committee report said, the police officers involved in this complicated area need more training. I am not saying it is a generational problem—although I have problems with my new iPhone—for police officers to deal with sophisticated cybercrime perpetrated by people and organised gangs in places such as Romania, the Ukraine and Russia, but it was not the bread-and-butter stuff of ordinary policing. It has become that, which is why it is important to train police officers, and why the Committee has recommended on previous occasions that specific time should be given to do so.
	The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who is not in his place, raised, and has done so in his campaigns, the need for more disclosure on the seizure of assets. The Home Secretary is on absolutely the right track on proceeds of crime, and gave us figures far in excess of those given by Keith Bristow. We welcome that, but we cannot deal with cybercrime on our own. We need Europol, which is why I was disappointed when I visited Europol and met Rob Wilson, the head of Europol—[Hon. Members: “Rob Wainwright”]. Sorry, I meant Rob Wainwright. I often meet Rob Wilson in the House. They look almost the same. [Laughter.] I am trying to dig myself out of a hole.
	In my meeting with Rob Wainwright—Rob Wilson was probably in Reading at the time—I was disappointed to learn that the Government are not prepared to put up the money for a cybercrime facility for Europol. That was a year ago, and perhaps the Home Secretary has decided that she will support that facility. I do not know, but she may have changed her mind. At that point, we were one of the few countries that were not prepared to support what Europol was doing on cybercrime. I hope we have changed our mind and are supporting that not just with words, but with resources.
	The Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary mentioned the proceeds of crime. I am not sure that the Bill deals with the issue—it was raised by the Metropolitan police commissioner with the Select Committee and, no doubt, with the Home Secretary—of those convicted of very serious offences who complete their sentence, leave prison, are given their passports and are then allowed to leave the country without their fines being realised, and so hang on to their proceeds. We obviously cannot keep people in prison beyond the term of their sentence—it would be unlawful even for Parliament to do that—so the judges are unable to intervene. I am not sure whether the legislation allows someone to be detained in some way following release from prison, but it was a concern expressed by the commissioner. He was right to be concerned, because people come out of prison, get their passports and leave the country with the proceeds of crime still somewhere within their empire. If that point is missing from the Bill, I hope that will be rectified through an amendment.
	There are many good things in the Bill. I am glad that the Opposition will support the Bill and that the Home Secretary has included several of the recommendations made by the Select Committee. I hope that it will be improved further as it makes its passage through the House.

James Paice: I am grateful for being called to speak so early in the proceedings on the Bill. I confess that I have often been a sceptic about criminal legislation. Indeed, as the shadow Home Secretary implied, it is easy to pass new laws and forget about the need to enforce them. More importantly, we need to use what is already on the statute book. I do not know how many new offences we have created in the years I have been in this House, but many of them have never even been used. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) mentioned FGM and the fact that only two prosecutions have been brought. So much legislation lies unused, which leads us to question its origins.
	I am not sure that I should use the phrase “Christmas tree” about the Bill—perhaps it is an Easter bunny, bearing in mind the season we are heading for. Nevertheless, it seems to be a Bill on which the Government have said, “In these different areas, there are lacunae in the law that need to be dealt with.” The Government should be congratulated on having the wisdom to address those areas. I do not intend to speak about all the different aspects of the Bill, but I shall address two.
	The first relates to the work led by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—I am glad to see she is now in her place. I entirely endorse the comments made about her work by the right hon. Member for Leicester East. Specifically, she led a parliamentary inquiry into the effectiveness of legislation in tackling child sexual exploitation and trafficking. I was privileged to be asked to participate in that inquiry and I learned a great deal from doing so. The hon. Lady chaired it admirably and it was supported by Barnardo’s. We have already debated some of the recommendations and the Government went so far as to include one of them—on grooming—in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. Today’s Bill, while it addresses many aspects of child and vulnerable people abuse, provides an opportunity to legislate for another recommendation, which was to place child abduction warning notices on to a statutory footing. I do not intend criticism of the existing notices—it was clear from the evidence that the inquiry received that they serve a valuable purpose—but the police and others made it clear that making them statutory would provide a greater opportunity to intervene earlier and protect vulnerable children. I hope that the hon. Lady will address that issue later and that the Government will look seriously at an amendment on that issue, should one be tabled.
	As for my second issue, I make no apologies to the House for returning to the issue that I raised in Home Office questions this morning. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has now left the Chamber, but I entirely understand that she has other issues to address. I am grateful to her for agreeing to meet me and a small group to discuss the increasing problem of illegal immigration. My concern is not the Calais group to which the right hon. Member for Leicester East referred and which we all see in the media, but the increasing problem of food supplies and larger groups. Arising from that are a few points that relate to organised crime and clause 44 of the Bill.
	In May last year I wrote to the Minister for Immigration, and I received a reply in July, specifically about this issue. I am afraid that the reply was what one might
	expect from an official civil service reply—I am probably guilty of signing many such myself in the past—and it told me how wonderful the Border Force is at stopping illegal immigrants and that it was doing all that it could. The problem is that since then the situation has got far worse. A business in my constituency is one of largest producers of fresh produce, such as salad crops, in this country and in Spain and other parts of Europe. Up to February this year, it had had three incidents in the previous two years of people coming in on its lorries, but since then it has seen a massive increase, culminating in three separate incidents in one week in the run-up to Christmas.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East referred to the situation in Calais, and he has obviously studied it much more than I have. We often hear of individuals or small groups trying to get on board lorries or hiding under them, taking all manner of risks for which I cannot possibly imagine the motive, although it is clearly there. The incidents to which I am referring are those in which people have entered secure lorries that are carrying food. The problem is not individuals, but groups of anything up to 12. One such group of 12 before Christmas included three young children. The group were lying on top of pallets of lettuce in a secure lorry kept at 4o as part of the cool chain. It is clear that those people are in the lorries for many hours—they do not board them at Calais or just outside. They are clearly entering the lorries in Spain or a long way down in France, well before the vehicles reach Calais.
	It is also clear that organised crime is involved, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. A dozen or 15 people do not get into a lorry on the off chance or on the whim of one individual. It is clearly organised and large sums of money are almost certainly changing hands. The groups break into the lorries, in some cases through the roof or—in more sophisticated operations—by access to keys that unlock the secure doors at the back. Sometimes the people have plenty of insulation or clothing, and it is clearly rehearsed and organised.

Keith Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman is right and I share his concern about this issue. As he says, security at Calais is very strong and the people are boarding even before the lorries arrive in France. Is there a case for the EU to perform spot checks on the lorries before they get to the border?

James Paice: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me on to the issue of Europe. I am not one of those who thinks that Europe has no locus on this issue. It is right that we work with our European colleagues, either as individual member states or through the EU as a whole to address these issues. Whether spot checks or, as the Home Secretary said in her answer to me earlier today, sophisticated imaging equipment that can see through lorries are the right way forward, I do not know. I am not technical enough to know the right answer, but I do know that this is a serious issue that has now gone beyond the problems of this one, albeit very important, business based in my constituency.
	We are now seeing lorry loads of fresh produce from Spain, ready packed and prepared to go on the shelf, going straight to supermarket distribution centres.
	The lorries are unlocked and people are found inside. The whole load is then immediately condemned as unfit for human consumption, so there is massive cost and massive food waste. Retailers are beginning to be concerned about supply. Relying on lorry-loads of lettuce, celery, spring onions and so on that have to be condemned on arrival causes havoc in their supply chain. The business in my constituency, which is not unique, had 263 lorries a week bringing produce from Spain. This is not just the odd lorry load: this is a very serious and major issue, and large numbers of people are involved. As I said, there were three cases in one week. Lorries arrive in pack houses in this country or go straight to retail depots. There are now serious concerns about supplies of fresh produce.
	The senior supply chain manager of the company said: “In my opinion, the people we have all seen on TV around Calais are smokescreens.” I am not saying that that is correct. “The real organised crime goes on out of sight away from the port of Calais. It would not surprise me if some of those people were actually encouraged to be there in Calais, or even paid to create chaos while real organised crime takes place elsewhere.” I cannot judge the veracity of those comments, but they reflect people’s concerns. I wanted to raise this issue today so that we do not concentrate our thoughts just on what happens in the immediate environs of Calais. In my opening remarks I said that this matter is relevant to clause 44. I hope that in the Minister’s concluding remarks—I am not sure who is winding up, but judging by the smile on the face of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) it will be her; not many people smile when they have to wind up, but there is a first time for everything—she will address the specific issue of our food supplies being affected by organised crime using our food supply chain as a means of access to bring in large numbers of people to our country.
	Clause 44 refers to people being part of an organised crime group. There is evidence that in some cases drivers may be complicit. I am not saying that every driver is complicit—I am sure that the vast majority are not. Nevertheless, an important message to get across is that a driver who is complicit is not just guilty on their own. If they are construed to have been a part of an organised crime operation, the offence they commit is even more serious and the penalty should accordingly be far tougher. That is the issue I wanted to leave with the Minister. I will take it to the Home Secretary in greater detail and take with me representatives of not just the suppliers but the retailers who face this problem. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise it this evening and look forward to my hon. Friend’s response.

Ann Coffey: The Serious Crime Bill is an opportunity for Parliament to remove all references to child prostitution from legislation. Britain should lead the world in outlawing the term. That would send out a powerful and unequivocal message, in the wake of the shocking sexual exploitation of children in Derby, Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oxford and Stockport, that there is no such thing as a child prostitute, only a sexually abused or exploited child.
	The term “child prostitute” is inappropriate and is an insult to innocent victims who have been robbed of their childhood and then stigmatised and blamed. Sixteen pieces of legislation use the term “child prostitute”, which implies an element of complicity and gives the idea of a consensual contract of a child offering sex in return for gifts or money. It is shameful that the offence of loitering or soliciting for prostitution, contrary to section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959, as amended by section 16 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, can still be committed by a child aged 10 or over. There is also an offence of controlling a child prostitute or child involved in pornography. As recently as June 2014, a Bolton man was charged by Greater Manchester police and found guilty of controlling a child prostitute for financial gain.
	There can be no doubt that much has been done in recent years to take the word “prostitute” in relation to children out of Government guidance. This is important because language shapes attitudes. However, it is incongruous and wrong that it still remains in statute. I hope that there will be support across the House for the amendments I plan to table to the Bill, which will consign the term “child prostitution” to the history books, together with amendments that will make it much harder for defendants to argue consent in cases of child sexual exploitation. There has been a significant cultural shift away from talking about child prostitution to child exploitation. Underlying that change is the acknowledgment that a child cannot consent to exchanging sex for financial gain. Removing references to child prostitution in legislation is the final piece of the jigsaw.
	It seems surprising now that up until only six years ago the sexual exploitation of children was still being referred to as child prostitution in statutory guidance. Fresh guidance in 2009 was entitled “Safeguarding Children and Young People from Sexual Exploitation”, whereas previous guidance in 2000 had been entitled “Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution”. The 2009 guidance stated:
	“Sexually exploited children should not be regarded as criminals and the primary law enforcement response must be directed at perpetrators who groom children for sexual exploitation.”
	However, the offences referring to child prostitution still remained on the statute book and that affects attitudes. Describing a young person as a child prostitute means they are not seen as victims and their sexual abuse is seen as self-inflicted. Those attitudes were identified in the Rochdale overview report in December 2013. Social workers talked about the victims making “lifestyle choices”. One Rochdale father described being told by social workers that his daughter was a “child prostitute”.
	Figures provided by the House of Commons Library for my recent report, “Real Voices: child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester”, which was commissioned by Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, show that between 1992 and 1996 there were 1,449 cautions—about 300 a year—for prostitution by under-18-year-olds, and 976 court proceedings for loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution under Street Offences Act 1959. In the four years between 2010 and 2013, 15 cautions were issued to juveniles under the age of 18 and seven defendants under the age of 18 were proceeded against. Of those seven defendants, three were found guilty but
	none was imprisoned. Last year, there were five cautions for prostitution-related offences for those aged 15 to 17. Two were proceeded against and found guilty.
	The figures show that attitudes are changing, but it is wrong that we still have legislation referring to child prostitution on the statute books because of the message it sends out. Referring to a young person as a child prostitute fuels old-fashioned attitudes that have done so much harm to children over the years, because it feeds the idea that the child is in some way to blame for their own abuse. Even now, Crown Prosecution Service guidelines state that children should generally be treated as victims of sexual abuse, but still add that
	“only where there is a persistent and voluntary return to prostitution and where there is a genuine choice should a prosecution be considered.”
	It is vital that wider cultural attitudes be tackled and changed if we are to protect children and young people from sexual exploitation. We have seen how the culture at the time protected well-known, high-profile people, including celebrities such as Jimmy Savile. Young people are still too often blamed for being a victim of crime. Police, social workers, prosecutors and juries, made up of ordinary people, all carry attitudes around with them, and language used in legislation heavily influences those attitudes. The more people I spoke to during my inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester, the more I realised that although we can come up with more effective ways of working for agencies, the most important thing we can do to protect children is to tackle the cultural attitudes that cocoon sex exploiters and enable them to get away with what they are doing under our noses. There has been a sea change in the public’s attitude towards same-sex relationships, the decriminalisation of which was an important step in effecting changes in attitudes. We must effect the same change in attitudes to the sexual exploitation of children.
	In 2012, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner interim report on sexual exploitation in gangs and groups, “I thought I was the only one. The only one in the world”, called for a Government review of all legislation and guidance that made reference to children as prostitutes or as involved in prostitution. In June 2013, the Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), produced a report entitled, “Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming”, which supported all of the OCC recommendations. In 2012, I chaired a joint all-party group report on children missing from care that called for changes to schedule 5 to the Children’s Homes Regulations 2001. We recommend that the obligation on homes to notify agencies of
	“Involvement or suspected involvement of a child accommodated at the home in prostitution”
	be changed to
	“suspicion that a child accommodated in a home is at risk of abuse or child sexual exploitation”.
	I am pleased that that has now been done.
	In 2012, in “Out of place: The policing and criminalisation of sexually exploited girls and young women”, the Howard League for Penal Reform highlighted the importance of language:
	“To speak of girls and young women’s involvement in prostitution without also stating that they are emotionally, physically or economically coerced is now the same as saying ‘girls and young
	women’s involvement in their own abuse’. To state that they are involved in prostitution is regarded as denial that they are being abused.”
	In April 2013, the Barnardo’s report, “Report of the Parliamentary inquiry into the effectiveness of legislation for tackling child sexual exploitation and trafficking within the UK”, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), also recommended the removal of all references to child prostitution in legislation, as did the report I produced last October.
	The Government support the principle that the phrase “child prostitute” should not be used, and Sara Thornton, the chief constable of Thames Valley police, said:
	“We try not to use the term child prostitute and our absolute aim is that we don’t use it. I think that if Parliament were to set the standard and say we’re thinking of new legislation and we don’t have the term child prostitute in the legislation, I think that would be a good step.”
	The office of Simon Bailey, the chief constable of Norfolk constabulary, who is the national lead for child protection and abuse investigation, said:
	“It is our opinion that the term Child Prostitution is no longer appropriate and does not truly reflect acts which should always be considered as Child Abuse. Child Prostitution implies complicity by the child when they should only be considered as a victim.”
	I agree. The continued use of the term by the criminal justice system gives out the wrong messages to those who are being abused, the adults who abuse them and the general public. It could be argued that those offences involving child prostitution are so little used that it is immaterial that they remain offences. However, I would argue that as long as they remain on the statute book, they influence attitudes to consent, which defence lawyers exploit, and are a barrier to a better understanding and awareness of the nature of sexual exploitation of children. It is shameful to us all that the term “child prostitute” remains in law. It is an outdated insult to victims, many of whose lives have been ruined. It is inappropriate. No one believes it any longer. It is plain wrong and it should go.

Mark Williams: I would like to address my brief remarks exclusively to the proposals in clause 65 to reform criminal law on child neglect. A lot has been said about consensus, including by the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and this is one policy area where there has been a genuine cross-party consensus.
	I reflect on the role of the Solicitor-General, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and, not least, the late Paul Goggins, who did a huge amount of work on this issue. I had the privilege of working with him on my ill-fated attempt to reform this area of law through the Child Maltreatment Bill. In many ways, I am making the Second Reading speech I had hoped to make then—when a Member comes 13th in the ballot for private Members’ Bill, they are not often assured that opportunity. The Solicitor-General and I also attempted to secure a Back-Bench debate, but such was the progress with the Government, whom I endorse, it was pulled.
	My private Member’s Bill galvanised a five-year campaign by Action for Children to raise awareness of and to tackle child neglect. It has first-hand experience of too
	many children across the UK experiencing chronic neglect. However, I must reiterate the point about cross-party support and the role of Paul Goggins. I recall going to a meeting at the Ministry of Justice with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the formidable Lady Butler-Sloss and Paul Goggins to make the case to the Minister. It was a case that needed making. When we talked to officials, they were not totally convinced of the need for reform. However, the Government conceded a selective consultation and were won over by the outcome of that consultation. I commend them for that.
	This is an important issue. The effects of emotional abuse have been shown to be lifelong and profound. I used to be a primary school teacher, and I could often see those early signs in the classroom. However, it moves on to neglected adolescents, who are estimated to be at least 25% more likely to experience problems such as delinquency, teenage pregnancy, low academic achievement and drug use. They are more likely than their peers to develop mental health problems and, as we know, are vastly over-represented in the criminal justice system.
	In the vast majority of child neglect cases, the solution is to work with families to help parents create a safe, happy home environment where children can thrive. As part of my work, I visited Action for Children’s project in Romford and saw at first hand its family partners scheme. It is doing invaluable work with professionals working alongside families to make appropriate changes.
	Sadly, however, not all cases of child neglect can be reversed through such interventions, and some cases require criminal law to punish cruelty to children. Yet, as we heard from the Home Secretary, section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the legislation governing this area of law, is not fit for purpose and uses antiquated terminology dating back to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1868. Though in theory the terms “mental derangement” and “ill treatment” used in the 1933 Act might have initially been directed at non-physical harm, the 1981 Sheppard ruling in another place specifically restricted the offence to children’s physical, not emotional, needs, and that has been the law for children under 16 ever since.
	I welcome the fact that, as I said, the Government have gone some considerable way—they have accepted that the term “ill treat” should be followed by “whether physically or otherwise” and that it should include emotional neglect; I am sure we are all grateful about that—but we need further clarification to make it absolutely clear that the ill treatment element of the offence will cover all forms of non-physical cruelty, including psychological neglect.
	Very real practicalities are at stake because having two different legal codes presents real difficulties for the police and social workers who need to work together effectively in these cases. If they do not, it is the children and young people who will suffer, particularly those young people who need a better and more holistic approach to their protection. As one police officer put it to me, neglect can be acted upon currently for people under 16 only when it leads to physical harm. Many of those same officers were confused by the term “wilful”.
	As the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said in an intervention on the Home Secretary, the case for replacing the term “wilful” with “reckless” is strong and it makes crystal clear what we are talking about. I was going to
	ask the Home Secretary to reflect on this, but she indicated that she would, which I very much welcome. At the very least, we need updated guidance, with the Government stating that the term “wilful” is to be understood as equivalent to “reckless”, ensuring that criminal justice and social care professionals, as well as juries, fully understand the law.
	I recently co-chaired—we all notoriously get invitations to these things—a meeting of the Westminster Education Forum seminar attended by local councillors, health care professionals, social workers, charities and the police among others, at which concerns were voiced about how the law could go too far, and how unintended consequences could happen.
	We need to reiterate to those involved that this reform is not intended to criminalise vulnerable parents and carers, including those who do not have the capacity to change their behaviour; nor does it aim to prosecute parents who have difficulty physically or financially providing for their children. It is not about “bad parenting”—I use the term very loosely—although when the debate was being conducted earlier this year, that was the characterisation in some elements of the tabloid press. Neither is this about the Government prescribing how parents—I am a parent of four children—should raise their children; rather, this is about serious neglect.
	I am sure that no Member would have any concerns about prosecuting an individual who persistently abused their partner or spouse, who locked them up in the evenings, forced them to defecate in a bedroom and to sleep on a bed riddled with maggots, and who refused to allow them to see their friends or wider family. How is it, then, that this kind of behaviour towards a spouse is currently considered criminal—before this Bill comes into force—but the same behaviour towards children is not? That is the issue. We simply cannot justify that.

Stephen McCabe: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s efforts in this area in the past. Is not the real issue this—that we agree that the Government’s intentions are good, but unless there is a degree of precision about what we are trying to achieve through this legislation, it could become another missed opportunity, leading to the confusion on which people have rested in the past as an excuse for inaction?

Mark Williams: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the challenge facing us in the short number of weeks ahead—to get this right. We have a golden opportunity. I remember going to meetings at the Ministry of Justice at the early stages, and this was not an issue or a priority. The Government have now moved a long way, and we do indeed need to use this opportunity to get it right.
	The discrepancy in the current law is a barrier to the proper safeguarding of children. How are agencies meant to work together when they are not even looking for the same signs of neglect? That does not make sense. We need a common and precise definition of neglect that is understood by all agencies and includes clear reference to the emotional abuse of children. I am pleased that the Government have seen that, so I very much welcome clause 65, through which the Government have decided to tackle this issue. There remains more to be done to improve the Bill and ensure that we properly protect
	children from psychological abuse. In the meantime, I am heartened by the consensus among all parties on this most crucial of issues.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee earlier reminded us that we are within about 12 weeks of breaking off for the next election. I am in the happy position, as he reminded us, of not standing at the next election, so I hope I can speak with a tad of objectivity. That said, the debate so far has been interesting and, for a change, it has provided more light than heat and there has been very little political bickering. Everyone who has spoken has accentuated certain points in this wide-ranging Bill in different ways—interesting ways, and no doubt sincere ways, too.
	It is a great pleasure to follow my fellow Welsh Member, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), and I am aware of the work he has done, with other Members, on the subject he addressed. I am pleased that it seems likely that the matters for which he has been pleading will come to fruition. In my experience, however, civil servants are always more difficult to persuade than Ministers—a common experience that we all share, I am sure.
	I by and large welcome the Bill and believe that the provisions on confiscation orders, for example, will be helpful to the courts, making sure, as was said earlier, that crime does not pay. That is so, particularly in the more straightforward cases in which the courts exercise their power to determine the extent of the defendant’s interest in a property. There remain, of course, rights of third parties to intervene and claim proprietary rights and so forth, but in the round I think the provisions are quite well drafted and I suspect that they will be used more often than the Government assume. The default provisions are welcome, too, and may well persuade a defendant to pay up rather than serve a substantial extra sentence.
	The Bill is a good example of legislation having been improved by its passage through the other place. During its stages there, the Government conceded a number of amendments, which have arguably made it a better piece of legislation. One example was the Government amendment to the provisions in clause 44 relating to being part of an organised crime group. When the Bill was first announced in June this year, the Government couched these provisions as a mechanism that would
	“send a clear signal to discourage corrupt and complicit professionals and others who provide the materials, services, infrastructure, information and other support that organised crime groups need.”
	It was evident from the start that this aspect of the Bill was one that the Government were keen to highlight for various reasons.
	However, organisations such as the Law Society voiced their opposition to the original wording, and made the point that the way in which the mens rea of the offence was drafted was too broad and could, in fact, catch individuals who were unintentionally caught up in a situation. The Government accepted the recommendation of the Law Society’s money laundering taskforce to change the mens rea from “reasonable cause to suspect” to “reasonably suspects”—in other words that the individual had participated in an organised crime group. That is to the good, for sure.
	As the noble Lord Bates said in the other place:
	“In Committee, noble Lords were concerned that ‘reasonable cause to suspect’, as an objective test, could capture the unwitting or naive and that there might be instances where the ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ became clear only with the benefit of hindsight. In providing for a threshold of ‘suspects’ without qualification”
	in the amended Bill, it
	“certainly deals with the concerns about inadvertently capturing the naive or unwitting.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 143.]
	That acceptance by the Government is important not only in its own right but as an example of accepting the advice of experts. I find it reassuring in light of the furore about joint enterprise charges relating to murder. Although it is slightly tangential, it is still relevant. The serious disquiet of many senior members of the judiciary and of the Justice Select Committee is, it seems to me, good evidence of that.
	I shall, however, concentrate on part 5 of the Bill, which I believe contains the most progressive measures. Clause 65 introduces an offence of child cruelty, and, crucially, does so by balancing physical with psychological harm. I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to recognise the debilitating impact that psychological abuse can have on children, which was mentioned a moment ago. I shall say more about the principle that psychological harm can be every bit as damaging as physical violence when I explain why I wholeheartedly support the Government’s proposal to insert an offence of coercive control at a later stage.
	Organisations such as the Children’s Society fear that the Bill does not do enough to protect victims of child neglect and cruelty, because the Government have not taken the opportunity to amend the definition of a child to include everyone under 18. We often pay lip service in recognising that lacuna in the law, which has already arisen in many other pieces of legislation since I have been a Member of Parliament, and we all say sincerely that we need to do something about it. I am sure that amendments will be tabled in Committee to address what is an all-important issue.
	As Members in all parts of the House know all to well, both the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Children Act 1989 define a child as a person under the age of 18. However, the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which provides legal protection for children from abuse and neglect, defines a child as anyone under 16. As a result of that discrepancy, 16 and 17-year-olds are not afforded the same protection as those younger, in spite of the fact that last year 1,110 of them were recognised as children at risk of significant harm and were subject to child protection plans. Furthermore, in 2014 Ofsted reported 40 serious incident notifications from local authorities relating to 16 and 17-year-olds, and, distressingly, 25% of victims of forced marriages fall into the same age bracket. Those young people need our protection, but, in the other place, the Government would not accept the need for the Bill to be amended to give them the same legal protection from cruelty and neglect. I hope that they will see fit to change their mind during its Commons stages.
	I welcome clauses 68 to 70, which result from Government new clauses that were passed in the other place. Female genital mutilation is a scourge on any
	society that allows the practice to continue—and that includes our own communities here in the United Kingdom, where too many young girls are forced to undergo an horrendous procedure from which they will never fully recover. I pay tribute to Members of the other place for passing the new clauses, which introduce, severally, an offence of female genital mutilation, an offence of failing to protect girls from the risk of it, and FGM protection orders, as well as—crucially—anonymity for victims of this shocking crime.
	The other place backed the new clauses, which is something that it does not do lightly. What is more, it did so with the support of scores of outside groups and organisations, not to mention that of the public at large. That is really no wonder, given that, according to a study compiled by Equality Now and City university, nearly 137,000 women and girls in England and Wales are affected by FGM. We owe it to young girls from communities that still employ this barbaric practice to do all that we can to ensure that they do not fall victim to the same fate.
	Let me now say something about the proposed new clauses introducing an offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in the context of domestic abuse. In the other place, peers such as my noble friend Lord Wigley and Baroness Howe discussed how the Bill might be amended and used as a mechanism to strengthen the law covering domestic violence. They tabled an amendment which argued that, for the purposes of the Bill, domestic violence was considered to be a serious offence. During wider debate on the amendment, peers discussed the need to give greater protection to victims of domestic violence that is psychological and coercive.
	I must declare an interest. Last February, I introduced a 10-minute rule Bill that would give statutory underpinning to the cross-Government definition of domestic violence, which is
	“any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to: psychological; physical; sexual; financial; and emotional”.
	In fact, the Association of Chief Police Officers got there before the Government: it has employed that working definition for some time, which is another reason for it to be enshrined in statute. As I said when I introduced my Bill, it is not currently a legal definition. Gaps in the current legislation allow perpetrators of psychological, emotional and financial abuse to continue their abuse without facing recourse for their actions.
	The principal gap in the law is the fact that coercive and controlling behaviour is not currently an offence in the law of England and Wales. My Bill, which also sought to close that gap, received cross-party support. I am grateful for the support of the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who is now the Solicitor-General; the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan); the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier); the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); and my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams).
	Over the summer, the Home Office launched a consultation on whether to strengthen the law on domestic violence, which included discussion of whether an offence of coercive control should be introduced. I understand that the consultation received more than 700 responses. On 18 December last year, the Home Secretary published a written ministerial statement which confirmed that a new offence of coercive control would be introduced now, and I welcome that move. Clearly the devil is in the detail, but I am sure that the proposal is well intended, and that, given proper scrutiny, the right measure will be on the statute book.
	At present, in the absence of any laws relating specifically to domestic violence, conviction rates in England and Wales are depressingly low, and the crime is still under-reported. Research conducted by my office established that, in American states where specific domestic violence laws have been adopted, conviction rates are impressive. It is understood that in England and Wales, in the five years leading up to 2011, only 6.5% of domestic violence cases reported to the police resulted in convictions. That is an appalling statistic. In contrast—and according to a slightly different measure—studies compiled in the United States have reported a 39% incarceration rate in Brooklyn, New York, and a one-third conviction rate in North Carolina. Evidently, adopting stronger, specific domestic violence laws could have a real impact in England and Wales as well. Moreover, the overall incidence of domestic abuse of this kind has fallen dramatically in the United States: according to commentators, it is about 30%.
	I hope that we shall be able to enact such a provision, although it would require extensive police training. The police would need to learn how to investigate the new offence, and how to recognise the behaviour involved. I hope that, if I am nominated to do so, I shall be able to discuss the issue in greater depth during the later stages of the Bill. However, I welcome the Government’s intention to introduce the provision.
	All in all, the Bill has many good aspects. It needs proper scrutiny and it needs to be strengthened, but it goes in the right direction.

Paul Beresford: I think all of us accept that this very broad Bill covers some very important issues. We discussed whether it could be called a Christmas tree Bill and decided that it could not, as it is after Christmas. However, as an ethnic minority immigrant to this country, I am informed by my wife, who is English, that Christmas decorations can stay up until 6 January, so we have just made the guillotine.
	I support all of the Bill but I will not cover all of it. I watched the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary try to cruise through it, and that should be a warning to anybody who wants to go home tonight and speak before 10 o’clock.
	Many of us have, as constituency MPs, seen aspects of the serious and organised crime elements of the Bill. On a number of occasions I have had very upset people in my constituency surgeries. They were the little people—not PayPal or the big firms, but the little people who had been damaged by serious and organised crime—such as the man who for the second time informed me that he
	had won the lottery even though he had never bought a lottery ticket. He lost £27,000, which was his life savings and fortune.
	Europol has been mentioned. I visited Europol on the second day of a two-day campaign it was conducting across Europe against serious and organised crime. It was fascinating to watch the co-ordination of police actions, with members of gangs across Europe being arrested at exactly the same moment. It was spectacular, and if anyone did not understand about serious and organised crime and its spread, that would have brought it home to them.
	Mention has been made of my interest in child protection. Two Members have mentioned the clause updating and clarifying the offence of child cruelty. Given that it updates a 1933 Act—the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—the action is, to use a colloquial phrase, an obvious given. The question one is tempted to ask is why it took us so long.
	In the same vein, I am delighted about the new offence—in relation to which the Home Secretary mentioned my name—making it illegal to possess paedophile manuals. The measure is an ingenious way of dealing with the use by paedophiles of written child pornography. I was on the Home Office taskforce that was behind the Sexual Offences Act 2003. With me was DCI Dave Marshall—then head of the Metropolitan police paedophile unit—and we tried at some length, but to no avail, to get legislative changes such as those introduced in this Bill. We wanted to fill this gap in 2003, and I have been trying ever since with Ministers of the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) mentioned the classic example of it being possible to persuade Ministers, only for it to fall foul of the civil servants. It happened again and again and again.
	This Government have recognised the activities of people who sexually abuse children using the written word to stimulate themselves. Sometimes the written word in this area is blatantly a “How to do it” paedophile instruction manual. This was made obvious to us as a nation in the BBC three-part documentary “Hunting Britain’s Paedophiles”, produced by Bob Long. This was the first programme that I know of that really showed how predatory paedophiles operate. It shocked the nation, and as it came out in 2002 it helped support the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Approximately a third of the Act covered sexual offences against children, including grooming. The first two parts of this three-part BBC film showed the Metropolitan police paedophile unit led by Bob McLachlan and DCI Dave Marshall, whom I have already mentioned, tracking, arresting and prosecuting a paedophile ring that had been operating for 30 years. If I recall correctly, the lead in this ring was a predatory paedophile by the name of Julian Levene. Again, if I recall correctly, he actually produced an action-by-action guide or manual on grooming and sexually abusing children, which was used by the gang for 30 years, with updates. In spite of this, as I have already mentioned, Dave Marshall and I were unable to persuade the then Government to take action.
	With this Government, my nagging—it has got to be nagging; my wife instructs me on nagging and I am becoming very good at it—of Ministers first at the Home Office, then the Ministry of Justice and even No. 10 was aided by a strong case being put by the Metropolitan
	police paedophile unit and by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. The wording of the Bill is, I have to admit, far superior to my earlier approaches. The example I have just given is of a blatant manual. However, much of the written word of paedophile abuse that I have seen or heard of is, in effect, an incitement and guide by example to the sometimes appalling sexual abuse of children.
	During the debate on the Queen’s Speech I briefly mentioned the case of a young girl in Kent who was kidnapped, brutally abused and killed by a paedophile. He had written his intended actions clearly and explicitly in a form that, sadly, turned out to be his personal manual. He is away in prison, I hope for ever, but the young girl is dead.
	I have noted that in the debate on Report in the other place, Lord Harris of Haringey—we used to conflict with each other on local government, but are now, amusingly, the co-chairmen of the all-party group on policing—introduced an interesting amendment, which I hope will be taken on and introduced by the Government at the next stage of this Bill. The amendment would make it an offence for an adult to elicit from a child a sexual photograph or send a sexual message to that child. Apparently, there is a tiny loophole not covered under grooming. He posed the example of a young girl in her bedroom on her smartphone sending messages to her friends, one of whom was someone purporting to be a boy who was in love with her but who was actually a man 30 years her senior. Lord Harris asked whether, if she was encouraged, cajoled and coaxed into sending a sexual image of herself, that would be an offence committed by the older man. I understand that this concern has also been expressed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
	I would add my concerns, but from a slightly different angle. Some months ago we discussed with one of the senior members of CEOP just such a scenario, albeit from the different angle of the photographs being used for blackmail either financially or for other purposes—I will leave that to the imagination—in order to control and coerce a child. Another source of damage is that many firms looking to employ a youngster will look on the internet at, for example, YouTube and find such photographs, which is not good for the young person’s job application. Many of us forget that once a photograph has been placed on the internet, it is almost certainly there for ever, damaging that individual for ever. I would therefore be delighted if the Minister stated in summing up whether I am right in understanding that this is what the Home Secretary was talking about when she mentioned an amendment to be introduced at the next stage—on which, with a bit of luck, I will be there to help and assist.

Sarah Champion: I am very pleased that I will be serving on the Bill Committee. In it, I will focus on issues relating to child protection, and I would like to raise the key issues in this debate.
	A number of Members have spoken about the cross-party inquiry I chaired with Barnardo’s. It started this time last year and looked specifically at whether there were
	gaps in the law on child sexual exploitation that we could challenge, and indeed there were. There were two key recommendations. I am very pleased that the Government have taken on board the recommendation on grooming children, and I hope that the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will finally complete its ping-ponging and come into law.
	The second matter I would like to raise relates to putting breaches of child abduction warning notices on a statutory footing, for which I have argued strongly. The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) has already mentioned this, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). Rather than going into the legal arguments, I should like to describe the reality of what happens when a child is being groomed, and to explain how, although child abduction warning notices could help, they are not at present doing the job they were designed to do.
	Let us imagine that the parent of a 14-year-old girl becomes aware that she is seeing a much older man. They speak to the child and try to dissuade her from seeing him, but she is adamant that he is her boyfriend and that she is going to continue to do so. They try locking her in her bedroom, but she climbs out of the window. At that point, the parent speaks to social services or the police, but the only tool that the police have is a child abduction warning notice. They give the notice to the alleged perpetrator, but this effectively means nothing. If the perpetrator comes back the next day and takes the child away, all the police can do is issue another warning notice. If he comes back the following day, they can issue another notice. By the end of the week, the perpetrator might have seven such warning notices. He has no faith in the police, the child has no faith that anyone is there to protect her, and the parents are completely helpless. The only point at which the police can intervene is when the child has already been groomed and has agreed to meet the perpetrator for sex, or when the abuse has actually happened.
	If we were to put the breach of abduction warning notices on a statutory footing, the police could prosecute the perpetrator or take the matter to the next level as soon as the first notice had been breached, before the grooming and abuse of the child had happened. This view was backed up by the witnesses who appeared before our inquiry. The witnesses ranged from children through to police officers, social workers, educationists and representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service, and they all said that if we could make just one change it should be to put the breach of abduction warning notices on a statutory footing. This matter is quite current, because Birmingham city council has recently had to go through the civil courts to prevent a group of men from meeting a young girl. When I spoke to representatives of the council, they said that if the breach of abduction warning notices had been on a statutory footing, it would have provided a much more effective tool for them to use.
	When the Bill had its Second Reading in the other place, Baroness Smith took up this recommendation and suggested that the question of child abduction warning notices should be explored in Committee. In Committee in the other place, Baroness Butler-Sloss tabled an amendment, supported by Baroness Walmsley, Baroness Howarth and Lord Rosser. Lord Taylor, speaking for the Government, committed to looking into child
	abduction warning notices. On Report in the other place, Baroness Butler-Sloss re-tabled the amendment to continue the debate. Lord Rosser again put his name to it, and Baroness Walmsley again spoke in support of it. The amendment was withdrawn following a Government commitment to hold a meeting between officials and interested peers. Baroness Butler-Sloss concluded by requesting that the Minister consider a two-stage process with an initial non-statutory notice, which in case of subsequent breach could be followed by application to a magistrates court for a statutory notice. I have spoken directly to the Home Secretary about the importance of putting the breach of a child abduction warning notice on a statutory footing, and I really hope that the Government will use this Bill to do the right thing.

Karen Bradley: I look forward to working with the hon. Lady in Committee, just as I worked with her on the Modern Slavery Bill Committee. She is making a specific point about child abduction warning notices, and I want to tell her that we are looking very carefully at the matter. As she knows, the key question is whether the police have the necessary powers to place restrictions or prohibitions on persons who pose a risk to vulnerable children. We will continue to examine that point, and I expect to make an announcement shortly. We will also deal with the matter during the later stages of the Bill, on which I look forward to working with her.

Sarah Champion: I am not sure whether a “Whoopee” is appropriate, but—“Whoopee!” I look forward to working with the Minister.
	I would like to move on to other elements that I will be arguing for in the Bill, all of which have been successfully debated in the Lords. The first relates to the lack of protection for 16 and 17-year-olds under the law. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) has already mentioned this point. While most English law treats anyone under 18 as a child, the criminal law on child cruelty, which dates back 80 years, protects children from neglect or ill treatment only until their 16th birthday. This makes it much harder to protect 16 and 17-year-olds from cruelty and sends a message that they are less at risk of abuse or neglect than younger children. In 2013-2014, local authorities issued 40 serious incident notifications to Ofsted relating to 16 and 17-year-olds. Some of them resulted in serious case reviews that highlighted the vulnerability of 16 and 17-year-olds. They showed the seriousness of the neglect and the cruelty to those children, which often had tragic consequences for the child but resulted in no punishment for those responsible.
	As the Home Secretary has stated, the current law is outdated and reflects what life was like when the legislation was passed in 1933. The school leaving age at that time was 14, and in 1931, 88.5% of males and 75.6% of females aged 16 and17 were in work. In 2014, 85% of 16 and 17-year-olds were in full time education or training and in 2012, 90% of all 16 and 17-year-olds lived with their families. These children are much more dependent on their parents now then when the law was introduced, making them much more vulnerable to abuse or neglect.
	I have already mentioned child abduction warning notices, but a gap in the law means that such notices cannot be used to protect 16 and 17-year-olds unless
	they are in local authority care. I am grateful for the research that the Government carried out in this area when I first raised this anomaly in the Criminal Courts and Justice Bill earlier this year, but I would like them to revisit it as it is a matter of considerable concern. Unfortunately, I am finding a considerable amount of exploitation in this area.
	Finally, I want to raise the issue of female genital mutilation and part 5 of the Serious Crime Bill. I acknowledge that awareness of this horrendous and debilitating crime has been greatly heightened in recent years, but eliminating FGM requires a change in culture. Work to achieve this change is being disrupted by those who promote the religious or cultural justifications for carrying out FGM and, in doing so, place parents under huge social pressure to conform. Legislation is, unfortunately, needed to prevent people from encouraging FGM, thereby preventing its perpetuation at source. The Bill presents an excellent opportunity publicly to condemn this act and prevent it from occurring, rather than having to wait until the abuse has been committed before prosecuting.

David Burrowes: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), particularly those focusing on child protection. I shall also focus on part 5 of the Bill, and particularly on the amended child cruelty offence. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) paid proper tribute to all those involved in working in that area, and I echo that tribute. I also want to pay tribute to Action for Children, which has been campaigning for many years for reform to the law in order to better protect children from emotional neglect. Back in February 2013, alongside the late Paul Goggins—to whom it is appropriate to pay tribute in relation to this campaign—I tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill calling for a change to our archaic child neglect laws. Clause 65 of the Serious Crime Bill offers a more up-to-date application of the law on cruelty.
	The media, the police and the courts have rightly focused on sexual and physical abuse, both historical and current, but it has already been pointed out that neglect and other non-contact forms of abuse are the most prevalent form of child maltreatment. According to evidence compiled by Action for Children and the NSPCC, this is the most disregarded area of child abuse.
	This long campaign has been based on a critique of child cruelty laws that contain definitions that are both out of date and unhelpful. The Government are to be commended for recognising the problem after much consideration and following the recent review. The law enacted in 1933 was based on the Poor Law Amendment Act 1868, which was passed to criminalise the offence of child neglect following the case of a secret and aptly named sect known as the Peculiar People, who deliberately withheld medical treatment from gravely ill children on the ground of their faith. To our eyes, in 2015, the language of that law is indeed peculiar, and it is quite right that it is now being amended.
	As has been said, the current statute does not allow us to recognise severe psychological and emotional abuse as a crime, but severe forms of emotional abuse
	can be just as damaging to a child’s development as physical abuse. I very much welcome clause 65, which extends the definition of ill-treatment to include non-physical harm. It also covers the important area of the wider circumstances where an infant is sadly suffocated as a result of sleeping next to someone who is under the influence of prohibited drugs. It is important that the law has been updated and extended in that area.
	Clause 65 is needed for the sake of children such as Sarah. Action for Children told me that when Sarah was five years of age her mother locked her and her younger siblings inside the house or out of the house for most of the day. When they were not locked out they were imprisoned in their bedrooms. The authorities were alerted by neighbours, who often heard the children crying. The reports were that the children were defecating in their bedrooms and smearing excrement on windows—it was a cry for help. At the age of eight, Sarah was repeatedly teased about her dirty clothes. Understandably, she became isolated and seriously depressed. She was treated by her mother as a servant and required to look after her younger siblings. When at the age of 11 she was finally taken into foster care, her story came to light. That shows why the law needs to be changed and we need a Cinderella law—this, however, is no fairy story for Sarah or those like her up and down the country, who sadly often suffer in silence. They suffer and are affected by serious mental ill health, with some resorting to suicide. They rightly deserve a law that is fit for purpose, and now clause 65 gives such children legal protection from all forms of child abuse.
	One big problem has not been as clearly dealt with as it could have been, and it relates to the investigation and prosecution of neglect cases. Neglect sits alongside other cruelty definitions which are “positive” in their nature: assault, ill-treatment, abandonment and exposure involve acts of action, whereas neglect involves acts of omission. That is why I intervened on the Home Secretary to ask for this Minister particularly to consider whether the progress on reforming the antiquated language of the 1933 Act is now reflected in clause 65. The definition of “ill-treats” including “whether physical or otherwise” quite properly covers non-physical neglect that prosecutors and police can probably appreciate. Reference has been made to the debate in the other place and the fact that guidance and training will be given in this regard. I welcome that, because it is important that everyone on the ground understands clearly what “neglect” means. The issue we face is that the word “wilful” remains. It applies in other areas of criminal statute, but it is of particular concern in this regard because “wilful” is attached to neglect. It is easier for juries, prosecutors and investigators to understand the term in relation to the “positive” acts of cruelty, but where acts of omission relating to neglect are seen as “wilful” it implies a deliberate intent. The other parts of this offence have now been updated, but the provisions on neglect have not been in relation to wilfulness. Even with clause 65, professionals and juries will still have to comprehend how a defendant can wilfully not do something. We do not want any lack of clarity. We made this made as clear as possible and we have a real opportunity to get this absolutely right and make it cast-iron, so I encourage the Minister to reflect on the matter during the further deliberation on the Bill.
	The other point I made in an intervention was on the need properly to equate these arrangements with what happens in current case law, where it is very much established that wilfulness equates to recklessness. There must be a way of dealing with this in definitional terms to ensure that that is recognised in statute, given that we have an opportunity to update primary legislation to reflect the reality that “wilful” means reckless. Understanding whether or not someone has caused psychological harm to a child through a failure to act while in a reckless state of mind is easier for professionals to apply in practice. The bottom line is to see what is happening in practice. Cases such as Sarah’s have sadly happened all too often and this change would make it obvious to the professionals when they go into the house on the first occasion that they can say, “Yes, that is neglect.” They would not have to work around antiquated language to be able to deal with it. That is probably a matter to examine in greater detail in Committee.
	I am pleased that the Bill recognises that for too long we have viewed the non-physical harm of children as being in some way less serious than physical harm, given that emotional abuse has such devastating, lifelong consequences for children’s mental health and well-being. It is good to see the Solicitor-General back in his place, because he has been involved in this campaign from an early stage. Clause 65 says loud and clear that the law will no longer neglect child neglect.
	Let me now deal with part 1. Confiscation orders have been the subject of significant legislation in recent years, seeking to catch criminals and seize their criminal assets. As has been said, the aim is to ensure that their crimes do not pay. I welcome the lowering of the threshold test to “suspicion”, so that early action is taken on restraint orders. That will have a significant impact. We want to catch the criminals and seize their assets as soon as possible, and this is not all about legislation; clearly, it is also about enforcement, co-operation and building incentives across the many organisations involved. That is why the Public Accounts Committee—before I was a member of it—published its report on 21 March in response to the critical National Audit Office report, in which it examined two areas in particular. The first was the incentive scheme, where it wanted to ensure a revision of that scheme to align success measures and objectives set out in the criminal finances improvement plan with a linkage in respect of effort and reward. The existing scheme simply rewards bodies for the amount of money they collect. We have a situation where, as a rule, the Home Office receives 50% of confiscated assets, despite it having no operational role. If we are to look seriously at incentives and linking effort and reward, we need to examine whether that is a fair allocation, particularly in these challenging financial times. It is a challenge for the Home Office to do this itself, because it has an interest in the gains from that 50%. We should ensure that the money recovered goes to operations and to the specialist resources needed for us to catch more of these criminals.
	I ask the Minister whether that arrangement is likely to change in any shape or form. The Government indicated to the PAC that they would revisit the asset recovery incentivisation scheme by the end of last year. I understand that the latest information is that the NAO is not aware that the Government have revised the incentives scheme. Will the Minister clarify the position?
	Will the Home Office ensure that all organisations provide their returns—I understand that these returns are not all complete—so that we can know exactly what is happening on providing a better linkage between effort and reward? Let me give one example in this regard.
	Local authorities play an important part in the chain of trying to catch these criminals, using intelligence support on the ground. Very much at a local level, they are able to play a crucial role in money laundering investigations and ensure that the proceeds of crime are recovered. Among others, they have a good case for ensuring that they get a fair share of the proceeds cake, so that the money can go directly to resourcing this specialist investigation. I say that with an interest, because Enfield was referred to in the other place by Lord Harris of Haringey, and it uses the money, and has done since 2011, to fund a specific post. That post has helped in undertaking the first prosecution nationally for money laundering against an illegal poker den, where the defendant was sentenced to 15 months. In addition, financial evidence was able to be provided in this way against a trader who was convicted of operating a fraudulent HGV training school and sentenced to 44 months, following a month-long trial. Those are just some examples, among many, of the good work coming from that individual post which has been funded in this way. It is important that that early stage investigation by an accredited financial investigator can continue to be funded if Enfield gets its fair slice of the cake via a proper revision of the incentivisation scheme.
	I welcome clause 10 and the increase in the maximum default sentences, which has the proper aim of preventing defendants from choosing to serve prison sentences rather than pay confiscation orders. I welcome the removal of early release provisions for the non-payment of confiscation orders of those who have gains of more than £10 million. I understand that that was also the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. It is important to see the thrust of that continuing, to ensure that we catch the most heinous of criminals who are exploiting the most vulnerable and gaining so much.
	I would be interested to know—this may well be explored further in Committee—why the Government have decided to remove early release provisions only for those with £10 million confiscation orders, and not for those with lower levels. I know that that matter was debated in the other place. An interesting judgment has to be made. Does such a decision represent value for money—the amount likely to be recovered from those with such orders—or do we need to consider the extra costs that would arise from the additional numbers in prison? There is also a general principle around removing early release, and the fact that it might also act as a deterrent.
	I understand that 60% of orders for sums of up to £500,000 have been discharged, which is a relatively good rate. We still want to see more progress, and the increase in penalties from lowering the threshold might help to improve that percentage. The Government are particularly focused on the 18% with more than £1 million who have only been discharged. That rate needs to be improved.
	The Government seem to think that they should focus particularly on those who have gains of more than £10 million. Those people will lose their early
	release, and so serve up to 14 years in prison. That will certainly have an impact. In the debate in the other place, there was a suggestion that more anecdotal evidence was available. I would like to see more evidence—more value-for-money evidence in particular. The public have a great disdain for early release provisions. The previous Government introduced automatic early release. The public failed to understand it, so, as part of our manifesto commitment to honest sentencing, we decided to move away from that. Minimum/maximum sentencing is a more honest and open way of proceeding with sentencing.
	Interestingly, in this Bill there is an order-making power for minimum/maximum sentencing. It is an unprecedented move in relation to sentencing, but it has now been given an airing. I ask the Government to provide clarity on this. They should accept the principle of minimum/maximum sentencing as an honest way forward while still retaining early release, particularly where we still have early release provisions for those with orders of less than £10 million. The question my constituents might ask is whether it is right for there to be the option of early release for those serious criminals who have orders of £900 million-plus. Should they get early release if they have not paid back what they should for their crimes? It is a judgment call for the Government. They are holding the Opposition to account for their general commitment to scrap early release for all default sentences, and there is certainly a cost attached to such a policy.
	I ask the Government to come back with further evidence so that we can judge why they have simply gone for those at the very high end. It is important that we come back to the basic principle—a principle that I applaud—which is to go away from what I think of as the dishonest sentencing of early release to a more appropriate minimum/maximum sentencing. The bottom line is that this Bill gives order-making powers to vary that. I understand why the Government want to proceed cautiously with the deterrent effect of removing early release for those with orders of £10 million and more and seeing how that works. I encourage the Government to go further with upper thresholds as well.
	The other matter that the Government will be introducing by amendment relates to mobile phones and it appeared in our weekend papers. I welcome the fact that action has been taken in this regard. It has bedevilled prisons for many years. Some 7,000 known criminals in prisons in England and Wales are linked to the problem of illicit mobile phones. Blocking those phones has challenged successive Governments. This Government in particular have looked at how they can do it, but have found it difficult both technologically and economically. The physical detection of phones is challenging and costly. Allied to the new and cheaper technology to detect the use of phones will be court orders to blacklist prisons and young offenders institutions. That will cost the taxpayer £300,000 rather than the £300 million that it would have cost to go through a blocking exercise. This measure is really welcome and exceptionally good news in the fight against organised crime. It may conjure up images from “Porridge” or from the original version of “The Italian Job” of a somewhat benevolent Mr Big organising his crimes, but the reality is far removed from that. The technology is used for murders, drugs importation, slavery, exploitation and to prey on the most vulnerable. The measure is very welcome.
	I welcome the Bill. It shows that the Government have not run out of steam and that they are not simply concerned with throwing out populist press releases. They are prioritising important legislation, protecting the vulnerable and prosecuting serious organised criminals who prey on the most vulnerable. It is indeed a serious crime Bill from a serious Government.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Serious Crime Bill. My comments will reflect mainly on parts 1 and 3. I like this Bill. I hope that it puts down a marker that says very clearly that there is no hiding place for criminals involved in serious and organised crime, and that there is no hiding place for those who prey on the most vulnerable in our society. I hope that it also puts down a marker for those who abuse women and girls and that it states that very clearly. Indeed I wish the Bill good flight as it proceeds on to the statute book in the near future.
	I agree that much more is required than just a marker for some crimes, especially for those serious and organised criminals. What is required is action. There are several areas where action could be taken and where action will speak louder than words. There are three actions that ultimately should come out of this. The implementation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland is one action that is required but on which this Government have so far failed to act. Secondly, we need to put in place resources to tackle smuggling, particularly the smuggling and the profits derived from the illegal smuggling and the illicit trade of fuel in our country. That is action that could be taken. We should make an example of those known criminals who are involved in this type of serious and organised crime by punishing them properly and by putting them behind bars.
	Many who have spoken in this debate tonight boast that this Bill will prove that crime does not pay because assets will be seized and the criminals will be punished. I have a message for this House tonight: crime does pay. In my country, crime pays handsomely. We should stop kidding ourselves that crime does not pay. If we are to deal with these matters, we need to recognise that we must ensure that crime does not pay.
	Northern Ireland has become the soft underbelly for serious and organised crime gangs on these islands who operate across jurisdictions and who do not care about the harm that they do to individuals. A blind eye has been turned to that fact. Just this week, we have seen the extent to which these criminal gangs operate. Indeed their ambitions are great. Just a couple of days ago, Donna Maguire and Leonard Hardy were both arrested in Spain for operating a £10 million crime empire. They hoped to buy properties in Lanzarote and across the Mediterranean with money derived from the smuggling of cigarettes across Ireland into Britain and from the smuggling of laundered fuel. Those two individuals were involved in the attempt to murder people in 1985 in the Osnabruck attack in Germany, so they are not the nicest or most pleasant of people. They are not Sunday school teachers at the weekend. They are serious gangsters and I am glad that they have been arrested, but I hope that this time they will end up in jail and that our authorities can co-operate with the Spanish authorities to see them put behind bars for very long time.
	Northern Ireland has become the base for such people operating the smuggling not just of counterfeit property but of people, fuel, alcohol, cigarettes, counterfeit goods and, most recently, foodstuffs. All those issues adversely affect the economies of all the British Isles—not just those of Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and Great Britain, but that of the Republic of Ireland. Just this week, 400,000 counterfeit vodka labels were recovered in a police operation. For more than two decades, that multi-million pound moonshine crime occurred across Ireland, setting up an industry that robbed the credible and lawful drinks industry, robbed Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of its lawful duty and robbed the revenue authorities in the Republic of Ireland of tens of millions of pounds of lawful duty.
	Each year, millions of cigarettes are smuggled across Ireland, north and south, and then across the Irish sea, yet no one is ever prosecuted or put behind bars for these crimes. To those who say tonight that crime will not pay, I say that I will measure that by those who are made to pay rather than by those who are making a very nice living out of such crimes. We can partly blame the loss on the fact that the National Crime Agency is not operational in Northern Ireland, but that is not the only issue. It is very easy for the Opposition to point the finger at the Government and say that they are not doing enough, but, frankly, this crime has been going on for two decades or more and so neither side of the House can say that it is blameless. Both sides have an awesome responsibility to pick up on the issue and to lead on it.
	I want to comment on fuel smuggling, which I mentioned in my maiden speech in this House. As we come to the last term of this Parliament, it is important to have a progress report on this important issue. Fuel smuggling and fuel-related crimes are among the most significant crimes occurring across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The A1, the main artery that runs between Newry and Belfast, is called “smugglers’ highway”. There are no HMRC patrols on that road, despite the fact that it is estimated that 50% of all fuel sold in Northern Ireland has been tampered with, stretched or smuggled or has had its marker removed. This happens across Northern Ireland. It is not a border crime and it affects every single part of the Province. My constituency, which could not be further away from the Newry border, has at least three illicit crime petrol stations in it that regularly change their names to avoid being closed down and regularly steal money from the Exchequer, and that money goes back into the hands of the most vile criminals that have operated across Northern Ireland and who are well known—some of whom I have named in this House this evening.
	An HMRC officer met the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and me in camera last year and recounted to us a serious allegation that a blind eye is turned to the crime of fuel laundering by, in his words, a senior HMRC official. Far worse than that, some officials were allegedly engaged in helping the criminals. He recounted how he was on duty one day and swapped his patrol duties with another officer. While he was on duty he stopped a vehicle that he suspected of smuggling fuel, and the known criminal driving the vehicle addressed him by name and told him that he was not supposed to be on duty that day on that road. That information could only have come from one place and one person, yet it reached that criminal.
	Another three officers, two of whom our Committee met in private, left their jobs because they did not feel that they could continue in their employment with HMRC because of bullying by a senior officer who they said was engaged in aiding and abetting this fuel crime. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was so alarmed by the extent of the crime that we spoke with the police in Northern Ireland. I understand that they are investigating that senior officer and his involvement in these crimes.
	That should be a wake-up call to this House about how serious these people are, how far they will go and how far they can reach into officialdom to get help. I have absolutely no doubt that officials are scared stiff of the threat, because they know that the people involved in serious organised crime were involved yesterday in murder and mayhem. It is the same people and this House has a duty to help to stop them.
	I believe that the Home Secretary will agree that this is a terrible turn of events and must be taken in hand. It is estimated that such groups defraud HMRC and the revenue authorities in the south of Ireland of hundreds of millions of pounds a year—hundreds of millions of pounds. We are not talking about a small crime involving a few million quid but about £600 million being stolen from our Exchequer in the last year. That is how much money our Government in Northern Ireland is about to borrow from this Government to help run their economy. That is how serious the crime is, yet it is done with ease. It is easy pickings. We must wake up to it and so must the Government.
	Not one person was arrested or jailed for these crimes in the past eight years. They are multi-million pound crimes occurring on our doorstep and not one person has been arrested or jailed. We have heard fine words tonight and have a very fine Bill, but we require dedicated action in the weeks, months and years ahead. We need a marker in our fuel that works and I welcome the work done by the Chancellor and his team on this, as I believe that they are trying to address this problem.
	I have spoken to the Chancellor and his team in the Treasury and I believe that they are doing their darnedest to make that happen. I wish them Godspeed in that, but I fear that others, particularly in the Northern Ireland Office, might have another agenda: to let former terrorists keep their crime business and not to get involved in stopping this crime. People might say that that is preposterous, that no Government would engage in that, and that a secret deal would have to be done, but we had a secret deal done on the on-the-runs. I have absolutely no doubt that if it has to come out, evidence will emerge that will show that the previous Government, under Mr Blair, were involved in ensuring that criminals could continue in this business of fuel fraud. The Government should stop it; they have the power to stop it and know how they should stop it. I have spoken to the Chancellor directly about it and I hope that actions will now be taken to address it as we come into the last weeks of this Parliament. I hope it is not the case that those crimes go so deep, but I fear that it is. In the next few days, we will be able to judge how serious the Government are.
	Not content with dealing with fuel as something to smuggle and the subject of criminality, the same gangsters are now attacking another important sector, having turned their attention to undermining our food security.
	We have good, clean, traceable food in Northern Ireland—indeed, it is the mainstay of industry and business in all our constituencies. Without agriculture and agri-food products, most of our people would be unemployed, so it is an essential industry, yet crime gangs—the very people who are also involved in smuggling fuel, tobacco and people—have now turned their attention to how they can make illicit gain from our food industry. Those involved in the horsemeat scandal that emerged just a year and a half ago operated out of Newry—the same people as have been identified operating fuel fraud in our Province. Not only are the same people involved in committing those crimes, but the same benefactors are behind them. Once again, action by this Government is needed.
	I welcome what the shadow Secretary of State said about the National Crime Agency; she was robust and firm, and rightly so. I sat on that Committee with the late Paul Goggins, and I admired his action and the points he made on that very issue. I believe—I have said this in previous debates—that the current Government should legislate over the head of the Northern Ireland Assembly and introduce legislation for an operational National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. Ministers have previously said that they would not do that. That is their position; I disagree with them.
	I have a challenge for the Opposition tonight. In May, they hope to form the Government of this country. Will they now make it clear that they intend to legislate to implement the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland? That is an important question for the Opposition. It could be a deciding factor in whether they have support from those on these Benches in the years ahead. They should tread carefully and make sure that they are prepared to implement the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland, because the fine words we have heard from the Opposition are indeed fine, and I admire them, but I challenge them to say now whether, after May, when—if—they form a Government, they will take that action. There is little point lecturing—indeed, at times berating—the Home Secretary on weakness if the Opposition support the same weakness by their own inaction.

Angie Bray: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. While suggestions circulate that we are sitting in an inactive Parliament, it is gratifying to see that business of such significance is still being done. The Bill is forward looking in the issues it addresses. The need to update laws on matters such as the recovery of assets, online and organised crime, and the protection of children, reflects the growing sophistication of the criminals who threaten our security.
	It would be difficult for me, as an Ealing Member of Parliament, to discuss tackling serious crime without mentioning the dreadful murder that took place in Ealing last year. The chief suspect was Arnis Zalkalns, whose murder conviction in Latvia was not known to the police in London. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reassures me that work is being done to make policing more effective across borders, particularly within the European Union, and I strongly support measures to do so. Cross-border co-operation is becoming increasingly vital in the fight against modern crime. Terrorists and
	organised criminal gangs do not respect national boundaries; cybercrime is similarly international, and the law must catch up with such threats to our individual and national security. The Bill contains a number of provisions relating to jurisdictions that should make prosecution in the UK possible where currently it is not.
	Across London, the rates of many sorts of crime have fallen over the last year. In 2013-14, compared with the previous year, burglaries were down by 8%, knife offences by 11.5% and gun crime by 17%. Police report that better intelligence work is reducing gang activity, too. That is a great achievement by the Met, and London's streets really are a bit safer as a result, but new sorts of crime are replacing the old and that is why the Bill is both timely and necessary.
	The threat of radicalisation of young people is a real issue in some parts of my constituency, and I have been involved for some time now with a local Somali group addressing that very concern, but in addition to understanding better what can draw young people into that way of life, we need real and severe punishment for those planning terrorist activity. We must do all we can to make it clear that this is by no means a glamorous life choice. I very much welcome the measures in the Bill to extend extraterritorial jurisdiction so that those involved in UK-related terrorist activity abroad can be brought to justice.
	The jurisdictional measures relating to female genital mutilation are equally important. FGM is a crime that it is hard to imagine is committed in the modern world, let alone in this country. There are groups, including some in my own constituency, doing vital work in communities to break down the walls of silence that can surround this problem, but the law needs to be very clear as well. The Bill is a welcome measure saying that those who are involved in that sort of abhorrent crime will be prosecuted: technicalities about UK residency status will no longer be a bar to prosecution; failure to protect against this barbaric practice will also be a crime, and absolutely right, too. The other important change is the provision for anonymity for the victims of FGM. More must be done to encourage reporting, as currently victims are very reluctant to do so. In the meantime we must continue to work with groups such as the Somali Anti-Tribalism Movement and use their knowledge and awareness of these crimes to bring them out into the open and make them liable to criminal prosecution.
	Last year I was briefed on online crime by the Mayor of London’s office for policing and crime, whose analysis shows that while many so-called traditional crimes are reduced, new sorts of crime emerge, much of which is online. People must be protected online as they should be in the real world, whether it be from online fraud, sexual exploitation or from larger scale cyber-attacks. Of small and medium-sized businesses surveyed in 2012, 87% reported security breaches, and phishing e-mails to individuals are now a part of daily life for anyone with an e-mail account. I am one of the many who have been taken in by an e-mail claiming to come from a bank and given out my personal details. Fortunately, I realised my mistake and made a very rushed phone call, but it is easy to see how people are fooled into doing this.
	I welcome the new focus the Bill is bringing to online fraud and scamming. At the moment, the Action Fraud reporting line seems to do little more than forward reports from victims to the local police force, which will not normally have the expertise to investigate properly; as a result, little gets done. I hope that the Bill, along with initiatives such as the work being done at city hall, will help to galvanise a more effective response. I think it quite right that obtaining tools used for online offences should be an offence in its own right, much as possessing an illegal weapon or a spying device already is.
	Sadly, social media has become a more dangerous place for children, making them vulnerable to bullying and sexual predators. In addition to the laws already in place I welcome the criminalisation of the possession of written material containing practical advice on how to commit a sexual offence against a child. Those paedophile manuals provide detailed advice on entrapping, grooming, how to find a child, how to offend and how to evade capture. It is absolutely right that that appalling material can no longer be legally held and possession will be dealt with more robustly.
	Moving on to the growing menace of cyber-threats, clause 40, which deals with unauthorised acts causing or creating a risk of serious damage, seems to me an example of sensible adjustment of the law to reflect the world in which it exists. The possible damage caused by cyber-attacks has grown massively as the criminals—not to mention certain countries—become more sophisticated. I cannot claim to be an expert in how attacks are launched, but the recent Sony case was a reminder that they are sophisticated, hard to trace and often international in nature. It is common sense that the scale of the deterrent must be proportionate to the potential damage caused by the crime. However, it is not hard to imagine how a cyber-attack could result in loss of life or a threat to national security, and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment should be available to the courts in these cases. I therefore welcome the creation of the new category of offence, as I welcome all the efforts made by this Government to give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to tackle the threat of online crime in all its forms.
	In all, this Bill is a sensible and timely package of measures to get tougher on some very serious crimes. I have not touched on the proceeds of crime or drug-related measures, but they too deal with issues that will affect all our constituencies and, again, reflect the more organised and sophisticated sorts of crime that the law must address. I have no hesitation in supporting them.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
	When the Home Secretary referred to scams that defraud pensioners of their savings, I thought that it is unfortunate that at present such scams are not often counted in our crime statistics. The crime survey for England and Wales has shown that since 1995, in our country, as in most other European countries, crime has consistently reduced, and we are all glad about that. I fear, however, that that is a reflection of crime changing and migrating to new kinds of offences for which our statistical methods fail to account. That is particularly true of online fraud and exploitation, people trafficking,
	and other very serious crimes. While I welcome this Bill, I think that measures other than legislation are needed to make dealing with these things a reality.
	I will focus on two parts of the Bill: in part 1, the powers to confiscate and restrain assets; and in part 5, female genital mutilation. I am glad that the pressure from the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill has been responded to in part 1 and that the test for freezing assets is being reduced from “reasonable cause to believe” to “reasonable suspicion”, as the Committee recommended. We also recommended, in paragraph 208,
	“that the existing requirement to demonstrate risk of dissipation be explicitly removed.”
	I am not a lawyer, and I recognise that that requirement, which currently exists in these sorts of cases, might still be there, but I cannot find it. I would be grateful to be reassured that it has been removed. If it has not, may I suggest that we should look at the issue when the Bill is considered in Committee? Very often, with those involved in organised crime and so on, there is no way of showing that there is a genuine risk of dissipating assets, yet those assets will be concealed, and it would therefore be sensible to enforce their restraint at an early stage.
	The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee also recommended that it should be possible to include in restraint orders
	“property that the court deems to have been related to the offence”,
	such as certain premises or very low-value property, particularly if that property is one of the tools, as it were, that are being used by the people traffickers to oppress and exploit victims. One of the aims of the powers of restraint is to disrupt the capacity of the criminal to continue with exploitation in future. I would be grateful to receive some reassurance from the Minister on those points.
	My main point is about female genital mutilation. We know how hard this offence is to prove. Indeed, we have had legislation on the books since 1985, amended in 2003, and yet there were no prosecutions until October last year. That is partly because we have not listened enough to victims and to women in the communities where FGM is most rife. Let us be clear: this is not some quiet little bit of fiddling with women’s bits; it is an issue of abuse against children and violence towards women, and all institutions of the state should be committed to eliminating it.
	At the risk of horrifying Members, let us go through the consequences of cutting into a young woman’s genitals, because that is what happens. It can cause haemorrhages and death. It can cause death from tetanus, particularly if it happens overseas—that is one of the things that the Bill is helping to deal with, for which I am grateful. In the short term it can cause shock, open sores, cysts and keloid scarring, among some of the less severe physical impacts. Sometimes the same knife or instrument is used to cut many girls without being sterilised, making the girls vulnerable to HIV infection. Girls who have been infibulated are likely to have trouble passing urine, as the urethra may be obstructed and urine cannot escape easily. They will be prone to bladder infections. Once a girl starts menstruating, it will be hard for menstrual blood to pass through the small hole, which may cause extremely painful periods as stagnant menstrual blood causes bacteria to build up, leading to pelvic inflammation. Infertility may result.
	So there are huge consequences to the offence. I welcome the changes in the Bill, which will help to deal with the main reasons why we have failed to prosecute. The main obstacle has been the difficulty in getting testimony. One of the reasons for that is that FGM is usually arranged by close family members of the victim, and children, whether from loyalty or fear, are reluctant to implicate their own parents or other relatives. The anonymity provision might help in this regard, but we also need to beef up victim support. I raised with the Home Secretary when she introduced the Bill the need for refuge provision for girls who are victims or prospective victims of FGM. The lesson we have learned from similar kinds of offences is that if a victim knows that she can be safe, she is much more likely to be a witness to the abuse which has harmed her. As well as legislation, therefore, we must ensure that there is effective protection and refuge for victims of this crime.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is she heartened by the Royal College of Nursing and other royal colleges adopting a joint approach, particularly to raise awareness within their profession so that there is a requirement for mandatory reporting by health professionals?

Fiona Mactaggart: Mandatory reporting by health professionals is essential, and it should be a duty on all professions, especially teachers. I agree that any steps which ensure mandatory reporting would be valuable.
	The other well constructed amendment that the Bill makes relates to immigration status. Where someone is at risk overseas, the amendment shifts the requirement from permanent residence, which was in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and was thought to be sufficient but proved in practice to be insufficient, to habitual residence, so that there can be effective prosecution of cases where people’s immigration status in the UK might be vulnerable. Those steps are important and will make a real difference.
	I mentioned at the beginning that legislation is often not sufficient to achieve the desired outcome. We need a multi-agency approach to female genital mutilation, involving education, health, local authorities, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, so that all the information on suspected FGM cases is shared and communicated appropriately. Institutions must work together on cases, sharing intelligence to ensure that girls at risk are not lost in the system. Even though there had not been a prosecution until October, every prosecution is a mark of failure. It is a mark of a girl who has been cut up. Our ambition should therefore be to change the thinking and to create a consciousness which rejects this form of abuse.
	We in Parliament know that we can do that. We have done it on gay rights and gay marriage, for example, and on a number of other things. We can change thinking. However, although I am glad that there are still a few Members in the Chamber at 9 pm on this first day back after recess, this debate is not going to do that. We have to go out there and work carefully with people to make sure that FGM is recognised as a crime and that we work with the communities most affected in order to prevent it.
	I was struck by what happened in a meeting I held in my constituency of Slough on 12 December on the issue of women and child sexual exploitation. About 25 women turned up. We were not focusing on FGM, but it was raised by one of the women in the audience. The meeting’s minutes say:
	“General feeling that a lot of ‘brushing under the carpet’ still happens in our communities regarding these issues. Much of that is closely connected to misplaced notions of shame/honour and that needs addressing and should not be allowed to go untouched or not spoken about honestly and openly…Strong feelings that women need to be at the forefront of tackling these issues and providing solutions but that hasn’t been case up to now”.
	A particular suggestion was made for parents to receive personal, social, health and economic education. I think it would be an excellent idea to educate parents about some of the risks to their children, such as online sexual exploitation and FGM. We could provide such mechanisms in schools to help to protect young girls. I pass that recommendation on to the Home Office team and hope they can make their colleagues in the Department for Education realise what a difference it might make.
	I gather from other speeches that there are plans to amend the Bill in a number of ways in Committee, including criminalising coercive behaviour as part of domestic abuse, which I welcome. I want to focus, however, on a proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) relating to child abduction, because I am concerned about the sentences available to people who have abducted children.
	I met Abida, who lives in Slough, a couple of years after I was elected in 1997 and she asked me for help to bring back her children. Just a year ago, the perpetrator who had taken away two of her children was successfully prosecuted, but the maximum sentence for such an abduction is seven years. Frankly, that does not seem right, given that a woman has been separated from her children and those children have grown up without the love of their mother or contact with their brother because their father has exploited them. They have spent many years without that contact. Indeed, as a result of the way in which they have been groomed during that process, relationships within the family have broken down.
	I do not think that the current maximum sentence is sufficient in such cases. Therefore, if the Bill Committee considers child abduction, I hope that the question of the appropriate sentence, taking into account in particular the amount of time a child has been separated from the rest of their family, is reviewed during that debate.
	It is not enough just to pass laws, although that is critical; we have to work together in unison. This debate has shown that Members on both sides of the House think that this Bill moves us forward in many regards, but we will have to work together and with people on the ground. That means using the resources existing in our constituencies to help women to be at the forefront of protecting their daughters and to help girls to protect each other by helping them be aware that such behaviour is illegal and is abuse, and that they can report it and be protected without making themselves more vulnerable to different kinds of abuse within their family. That is what we must all do.
	I am glad that these issues—people such as me have blithered on about them for decades—can now be discussed
	in Parliament, and that we can do something that I hope will be more effective than what we have been doing for the past 20 years.

Maria Miller: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I was particularly pleased that she said the Bill “moves us forward”, which encapsulates the tone taken by many hon. Members in the debate.
	This important Bill demonstrates the undiminished work rate of this Government. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed it, particularly for its ensuring that the National Crime Agency, the police and other enforcement agencies have the powers they need to bring criminals to justice.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) was right to say that Government is not just about passing laws, but about enforcing them. The Bill demonstrates that we must be continually on our toes and watchful about how we can strengthen the law on organised crime, particularly in relation to cybercrime and the protection of vulnerable individuals.
	As we have seen today, in the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), we have a Minister who is truly on her toes. Her intervention at the Dispatch Box showed her doing her job in real time, adapting policy as and when it is good to do so to improve the law she is responsible for passing. I very much welcome her approach.
	I will focus my speech on the parts of the Bill relating to computer misuse and to protecting children and other vulnerable adults. Before I do so, I want to say that I was rather taken aback when I looked at some of the data on the proceeds of crime measures. I will not dwell on them, because hon. Members have already made extremely good and lengthy speeches about them. The fact that the proceeds of crime are relevant to all our constituents and that having strong law to tackle it more effectively is important was brought home to me by Hampshire constabulary’s seizing of cash and assets well in excess of £20 million in our county alone during the past year. That money was gained illegally from hard-working individuals in my constituency and other parts of the county. It really brings home the need to ensure strong legislation in this area that is relevant to all our constituents.
	To move on to the first of the two areas on which I want to comment, computer misuse, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) outlined the huge potential economic consequences of not getting the law right in this area. Indeed, throughout the Christmas period, we have been reminded of the devastating effect of cybercrime on big business in this country.
	I very much welcome the work that the Government have already done in this area. Online crime takes many forms, and the Bill starts to address new ones. It is an area in which the Government have to be nimble. I particularly thank colleagues in the Ministry of Justice for what they have already done, through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, to outlaw revenge pornography. Again, I welcome the work that Ministers are doing on computers that cause or create a risk of serious damage, and on outlawing that.
	Current legislation does not reflect the sort of damage that a major cyber-attack on systems could cause, so I welcome the measures in the Bill and agree that tackling cybercrime must be an important part of the Government’s organised crime strategy. There was some debate in the other place about the way the new legislative power has been framed. Criminal law must provide protection against a cyber-attack on essential systems such as food and power supplies, and other forms of infrastructure. Will the Minister tell the House why she has decided to frame that part of the Bill in such a way, and say what would constitute serious damage to the environment or the economy? I know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered that issue when scrutinising the Bill, and it would be helpful if the Minister outlined why the provision has been framed in such a way.
	By its very nature, cybercrime needs to be addressed on an international stage, and the Government have done an incredible amount of work not only within the European Union but with US law enforcement agencies on the issue of child exploitation. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made on that, because I think the UK Government are groundbreaking in their approach? Can she give any more detail on work that is being doing to learn from protocols that have been established on child exploitation, and say how those could be used in tackling broader cybercrime?
	The third area on which I would welcome the Minister’s remarks when she winds up the debate is the progress that the Government are making on tackling this issue in the broader business context. I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on that matter, and was interested to read the report by the National Audit Office on the importance of ensuring that business takes the threat of cybercrime seriously. Although the NAO commended the Government for their progress in trying to tackle such matters, particularly on national security, there was perhaps a little more concern about the progress being made by business and the wider public services in tackling cyber-security issues.
	I was particularly interested to read work by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in that area, and its analysis—this information is dated 2014, so it is current and recent—that some 24% of large organisations detected that outsiders had successfully penetrated their networks in the last year, and that that figure had risen from 20%. I commend the Government and Ministers for their work to ensure that the legislative framework is sound, but will the Minister also update the House on her feelings about how business is taking the issue forward? Some 59% of respondents to the BIS survey expected that there would be more security incidents next year compared with last year. When we are talking about companies that provide our electricity, gas or food supplies—organisations that are critical to our everyday life, and for which I know the Minister wants the Bill to provide legislative support—I am concerned to read that there is still a way to go for them to be doing all they can to ensure that their systems are as robust as we need them to be.
	Perhaps the most worrying thing of all in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills survey is the fact that some 7% of the worst security breaches were partly caused by senior management giving insufficient priority
	to security. That might be a slight improvement over time, but it is still worrying—the number should not be above 0%.
	Part 5 of the Bill is on the protection of children. We have heard extremely powerful contributions from hon. Members who have incredible knowledge of this area of law over time. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made a powerful contribution on paedophile manuals—he has been involved in getting provisions on them into legislation.
	The Government have done so much to strive to make this country a safer place for children, providing protection from those who seek to exploit children and do them harm. It is not surprising that the Bill needs to tackle that problem again and make important amendments to strengthen the provisions that are in place, but I want to make one point in support of the Children’s Society briefing on the age range that the Bill and the protection from cruelty provision cover.
	The provisions are primarily designed for children who are in the care of an adult, and to provide protection for children who are in receipt of care that falls well short of that which they should expect. The vast majority of 16 and 17-year-olds live in a family with a guardian and carers, and for the most part are in schools or in training. I gently ask Ministers what work they have done on trying to ensure that the Bill provides the protection for 16 and 17-year-olds that they clearly want to afford to those under the age of 16.
	I have enormous sympathy for the Minister. I know from my responsibilities as a Minister that there is considerable inconsistency in the law’s treatment of under-18s, but the provisions are clearly for children who are still being cared for by an adult. Does she agree that the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights might be worth looking at again? Could she ensure that such protection is afforded to those 16 and 17-year-olds? As the mother of a 16-year-old, I know, as many hon. Members will, that 16-year-olds are far from adult and very much in need of their parents’ support.

Sarah Newton: I support my right hon. Friend. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can be very vulnerable. Prosecutions are attempted every year for dreadful acts of cruelty and neglect. Does she, like me, hope the Minister will give us some comfort in her summing up—we accept that it is a difficult area—that she will look at what provisions could be made in the Bill for vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I hope the Minister reflects on that. I know from my experience that the law is not consistent in its treatment of young people of that age. I therefore understand the challenges she faces, but I hope Ministers have heard the protestations from Government Members and provide reassurance to us.
	I wanted to touch briefly on another provision in this part of the Bill because only one other hon. Member did so—my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). An amendment is required to update the law on the suffocation of children to ensure that it includes individuals who are under the influence of drugs as well as those who are under the influence of alcohol. It struck me in reading those provisions that I hoped that Ministers had taken some expert advice
	from organisations that were supporting people, especially those with very young children. This issue was not debated in the Lords, as far as I could tell, and I was concerned that it might not have had the scrutiny that it needs. Perhaps the Minister can provide some reassurance on that point.
	The Bill also contains important provisions relating to FGM, about which we have heard a great deal this evening. The House will have noted the support for the measures from the Royal College of Nursing and others, and I commend the work of the Home Office team on this issue. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in his place, seemed to imply that it was necessary to criminalise health workers who did not report cases of FGM to the police. I urge the Minister to be cautious about that. Health workers are in a very difficult position as they have a duty of confidentiality as well as a duty to support victims who may turn to them for help. I hope that the Minister agrees with me that we should not leave health workers feeling exposed in that area.
	The Bill also contains provisions on the protection of children from sexual communications. The Prime Minister has made clear his commitment to child safety over several years, and I welcome the fact that it will be made illegal for an adult to send a child a message with sexual content. I know, from looking at the area in some detail, that there is a mishmash or patchwork of law that is lacking in several areas. I look forward to examining the detail of the Government’s proposals in Committee.
	I urge the Minister to consider how she can make sure that teachers have clear messages about their work in this area. The most recent education legislation contained provisions giving teachers the power to delete sexually explicit texts and images on students’ mobile phones or in their e-mails. No data are available on how widespread such actions are, although anecdotally it would appear that most schools have undertaken them. It is unclear how many such incidents are then reported to the police, even though the guidance is clear that any indication of coercion should trigger a report. We may need to tighten up the guidance, because it is unclear whether teachers are getting the support they need to make good decisions on which images and texts should be deleted.
	I welcome the indications from those on the Front Bench about further provisions on coercive control and domestic violence. For many years the Home Secretary has been a robust and effective campaigner on the issue of domestic violence, and it is her personal commitment to tackling domestic violence in all its forms that has meant that we have come so far in such a short time. I am glad that Women’s Aid has welcomed the introduction of this new criminal offence.
	This is an important Bill and I am pleased to support it. The Government are right to act on these issues and I am glad that they have the support of the whole House.

Chloe Smith: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller). Like her, I welcome the breadth of the Bill. I wish to focus on clauses 40 to 43 in part 2, which relate to cybercrime.
	I do not usually speak in this House on foreign affairs, national security or organised crime. However, the cyber-security of our citizens and our country is hugely important and ranks alongside those more traditional spheres. In the words of The Economist:
	“After land, sea, air and space, warfare has entered the fifth domain: cyberspace.”
	The UK Government rightly already take these issues seriously. The 2010 national security strategy rated cyber-attacks as a tier 1 threat. That is why, despite a tight fiscal situation, they set £650 million aside over four years to develop the UK’s response. The cyber-strategy sets out four objectives: first, for the UK to tackle cybercrime and be one of the most secure places in the world to do business in cyberspace; secondly, for the UK to be more resilient against cyber-attacks and better able to protect our interests in cyberspace; thirdly, for the UK to have helped to shape an open, stable and vibrant cyberspace that the UK public can use safely, and which supports open societies; and fourthly, for the UK to have the cross-cutting knowledge, skills and capability it requires to underpin all of the above. It is that document that leads us here today through its commitment to reviewing existing legislation, for example the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and which led to the mention of this Bill in the Queen’s Speech.
	I ought to mention that I held ministerial responsibility in this area. As a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, I supported the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), in leading the national cyber-security programme. It is right to note in passing that it is correct to give that kind of cross-cutting leadership to the Cabinet Office, because in addition to everything the Minister is doing, she needs the co-operation of other Ministers and other Departments to keep us safe in the cyber-domain.
	Cyber-security is perhaps in our minds owing to the attack on Sony late last year. Others have included the issue in their reviews of 2015: Luke Johnson, who floated Pizza Express in 1993, says that his big tip for 2015 is to get into cyber; US News, in its resolutions for 2015, argues that 2014 was the year that the hack went viral; and Huawei, a Chinese firm well known in the sector, continues to publish white papers, most recently in December, carrying the 100 things that its clients most need for their cyber-security. It is worth noting in passing that its papers are authorised by a former UK Government chief information officer. It is therefore timely to be looking today at the measures we need to better tackle cybercrime in Britain. Freedom from cybercrime is, needless to say, but one part of our cyber-security. The Bill is only one part perhaps of a whole framework of rights, responsibilities, freedoms and offences that one might argue we should debate to enable Britain to fulfil the four objectives: to be skilled, to be resilient and to be economically secure, but also open and free.
	I have three points to make on the Bill. First, the most recent explicitly relevant legislation, the Computer Misuse Act 1990, is 25 years old. It is necessary to review and update any law after 25 years. Secondly, the UK needs to be able to make the national security and jurisdiction aspects contained in the clauses work effectively. Thirdly, there is the attitude that citizens need to take to their own cyber-security. Let me start with the first point.
	Let us cast our minds back and ask what did not exist in 1990. I mentioned one of the entrepreneurs behind Pizza Express. Britain in 1990 had only a dozen Pizza Express restaurants, as opposed to the hundreds we see now. That shows how our offline economy and leisure habits have changed as much as those online. Sticking with leisure and recalling the film industry’s December hacking woes, think of the kind of technology we now see on screen. If you enjoyed any Pixar films over Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, recall that Toy Story was the first feature length computer animated film and was released in 1995. Moving on to communications, the world’s first smart phone, the IBM Simon, enjoyed its 20th anniversary last year—it went on sale in 1994. If we thought that one trend remained ahead of us, known as the internet of things and defined by Cisco internet business solutions groups as the moment in time when more things or objects are connected to the internet than are people, consider that the world passed that milestone in 2010. It stands to reason, therefore, that the 1990 law needs to be looked at: we ought to review it for the correct technical content; we ought to keep it under review for the appropriate freedoms, including today’s attitudes to data and ownership; and we ought to ensure it is future-proofed correctly. Today’s attitudes are not enough—tomorrow comes on pretty quickly—so we need to allow for frequent future updating in expectation of that fast change.
	Computers make crime easier, faster and bigger—the same thing the internet has achieved in so many other areas of our lives—and that trend is going to continue. The president of the National Association of Data Protection Officers says:
	“It’s the industrialisation of cyber-crime that’s the biggest challenge and in this area that are some menacing Mr Bigs who need to be faced down with greater risks to their personal liberty”.
	Of course, a law that limits one person’s liberty limits another’s, and I do not underestimate the need to respect liberty. Sir Tim Berners-Lee argues that the worldwide web needs a Bill of Rights, which he says can only come about through communal decision, but that is a debate Parliament can have another day.
	What should we look for today in the Bill? We ought to consider what prosecution can achieve. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), in her analysis of a different part of the Bill, rightly said that in many ways any prosecution was a failure, and it is true here, too, that to rely on law to enhance our security is in many ways to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. We all expect our personal interests and critical national infrastructure to be strongly prepared, well protected and resilient. I welcome an updated criminal offence, but prosecution is after the fact. At best, it might be a strong deterrent, but nobody should expect it to form the only line of defence; we should expect those responsible for our national security to do a better job in the first place, rather than resorting to catching and prosecuting somebody who has caused the sort of serious damage mentioned in the Bill.
	Various experts and commentators say the Bill will play
	“an important role in helping to reduce the rates of cyber-attacks and deter criminal activity in this space… However, attribution continues to be one of the major difficulties… Therefore companies should not become complacent around cyber-security”.
	Furthermore, they
	“should be focusing on prevention over prosecution”
	and should also
	“ensure they have the ability and the processes in place to be able to act quickly if a breach occurs.”
	The same goes for any organisation with responsibilities in this realm. I note in passing that the UK Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure rightly explains that there are many other threats to our critical national infrastructure than merely cyber. We are right to focus on serious damage through cyber-attack, but it is not the only way someone could break a piece of CNI.
	A technology and compliance lawyer adds a further warning:
	“Internet crime is a global phenomenon and needs global co-operation. We need to be prepared to apply for extradition too to make them serve their sentence. This may be in part about that—to make sure foreign governments know we are serious to try and get greater co-operation across borders.”
	I agree with that commentator on the importance of greater co-operation.
	I want to make two small technical points. Section 17(6) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 says that a computer is something that contains a program or data. Does the Minister think this is still a sufficient definition? Perhaps she could come back to me on that after the debate. Further to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke raised, the Joint Committee on Human Rights took the view last October that the definition of “serious damage” may require revision, given that we are contemplating handing out life sentences. Will the Minister say a little more about that?
	The UK needs to be able to make the national security and jurisdiction aspects in the Bill work. Does the Minister think the “linked to the UK” provisions are watertight? In particular, I have noted a discrepancy between what appears in lines 36 to 38 of page 36 and what is suggested in the explanatory notes. Explanatory notes are never to be taken on their own in themselves—they always say that very clearly—but is it possible for someone who is not a UK national who is affecting or intending to affect the UK, but not using a computer in the UK to do so, to walk away from this legislation? It seems to me that there is one small scenario left that may or may not be covered by the final paragraph (c) in clause 42(5).
	Will the Minister clarify her views on whether the kind of attack on Sony before Christmas constitutes “serious damage” under this legislation, and perhaps, to be a little mischievous, on what she would do if she were in President Obama’s shoes, although that might be something for a later conversation? Will she describe what our own state is liable for under this legislation, considering that we have publicly promoted the existence of our own offensive cyber-capability? Finally, will the Minister confirm whether we are prepared to extradite to make these provisions work, and how she thinks this new law might have changed the situation of Gary McKinnon, for example, or someone in a similar position?
	Let me turn to my third and final area of comment. I entirely support the Bill, and I raise just a few probing questions to deal with its various aspects. I have remarked that the tools we need to protect citizens from cybercrime are but one part of our broader cyber-security, and that the legislation is only one part of the fuller framework. I
	have mentioned what businesses and organisations need to do to protect themselves, but the final question is, of course, what the citizen should do to protect him or herself.
	Get Safe Online—a good resource in this area—reminds us:
	“There are a number of sensible and simple measures which you need to take in order to protect yourself against risks”,
	and I refer hon. Members to that resource to do so. Taking these measures is important in one’s own home and also in the workplace. Indeed, no one who runs their own business should need a Member of Parliament to tell them how valuable is the online security of their own business, but what about people who work for someone else’s firm, and indeed the firms that make up the UK’s critical national infrastructure? Some argue that
	“the biggest challenge at all levels in improving protection of the UK’s CNI is the security awareness of all the people who work”
	for it. It is not only malice that can cause “serious damage”, but human error, incompetence and fatigue.
	Let me provide some examples from the Transport Committee, on which I sit. First, in relation to malice, Edmund King, president of the Automobile Association, recently reminded us that modern cars can be connected to the internet 24 hours a day, and that he was concerned that hackers could control a car by attacking through its safety features. Secondly, we have heard in some detail on the Committee how and why the National Air Traffic Services system recently failed. We could argue that its evidence suggested that some failure is acceptable, as the argument has been put that when we have millions of lines of code, we cannot be expected to be sure of all of them. I read a recent paper that rather wonderfully talked about the attempts of
	“either Murphy or Satan to interrupt the supply”.
	You are looking very keen to interrupt me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall finish. I have argued that legislation and law enforcement are only part of the picture. It is also incredibly important that we as individuals think about the risks that we undertake. We should think about all this in the products we use now, and all those we might use tomorrow. Just because someone has designed something cool, it does not mean that we as consumers have to buy it unthinkingly. Entrepreneurs themselves have to engage in the ethics of their own tech. We all want to live in a Britain that is skilled, resilient and economically secure, but also open and free. We all want the Mr Bigs of this online world taken down, which is why I support the Bill and its updating of old legislation.

William Cash: I am aware of the time constraints, so let me simply say that I very much welcome the Bill, particularly the part that deals with female genital mutilation. I am intrigued, too, by the Bill’s provisions relating to the possession of paedophile manuals, which are to some extent based on the Protection of Children Act 1978. I was involved with that Bill between 1977 and 1978, and it was passed only because the Prime Minister’s wife—the Prime Minister at the time was Jim Callaghan—insisted that if he did not
	allow the Bill to go through, she would not speak to him for six months. In fact, he made sure on Report that it did go through.
	I am glad to observe that we are building on that, but I am very concerned about the parts of the Bill that deal with female genital mutilation, although Members will have an opportunity to table amendments in Committee. At present, the court may make an order in relation to the commission, or the protection of a girl against the commission, of a genital mutilation offence. Some members of the all-party Committee—including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who will speak in the Committee—will be tabling amendments, because we strongly believe that there is a case for dealing with the circumstances in which the risk of the commission of a genital mutilation offence arises.
	Because the order made by the court is aimed at prevention of the offending conduct, it must be prospective, and must be founded on an appropriate gauging of risk. None the less, the inclusion of the words “at risk” in the relevant paragraph would have the benefit of indicating to front-line workers—this is the practical aspect—that the provisions permit them to seek the court's intervention once a risk of commission has been identified. We need to consider that carefully, because, as was made clear by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee—only two successful prosecutions have been made since the 1980s. We are focusing on the prevention as well as the commission of the offence.
	Many front-line workers have been reluctant to take safeguarding action or initiate alerts for fear of being accused of targeting minority communities or raising an alarm when some of the acts preparatory to the commission of the offence have not been completed, but there are indications that the putative victim has been placed “at risk” of commission of the offence. That reluctance has led to a decrease in the number of opportunities for prosecutions, and has left many young potential victims without the necessary protection. We believe that the addition of the words “at risk”, accompanied by non-exhaustive statutory guidance for front-line workers on the threshold for intervention—which could be introduced either by means of a statutory instrument or under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—would increase effectiveness, and would give front-line workers the confidence that would enable them to take robust preventive action.
	We are trying to anticipate the actual commission of the offence. The communities involved often come from parts of the world where it is a ritual that is part and parcel of their culture, so it is very important for us to act at the right time if we are to tackle the problem effectively. In that context, the “at risk” element is as important as the commission of the offence.
	I will leave the other arguments to the Committee, but that is the essence of the argument that will be deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire.

Jack Dromey: Serious and organised crime poses a severe and growing threat to those in our country. It poses a threat to the pensioner who is vulnerable to online financial scams. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) spoke of
	“the little people”: one vulnerable pensioner in his constituency was ripped off by £27,000. It poses a threat to the child who is vulnerable to those who prey on children, and to child sex exploitation. That obscenity, which has existed for many years and exists to this day in our society, was brought to life today by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and the hon. Member for Mole Valley. It also poses a threat to our economy, which is vulnerable to cyber-attack and, in particular, to the impact that it might have on our finance and our infrastructure. That was brought to life by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). It was right that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said that there should be no hiding place, and it is also right for the House to act.
	The Bill contains some welcome moves. We will support the Bill, but we will seek to strengthen it during its passage through Parliament, because this Bill lacks the ambition necessary to respond to the scale and seriousness of serious and organised crime. It contains some significant omissions, and the Government have failed to recognise the argument put forward by a number of Members today: that legislation is crucial, but so is enforcement, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). As the shadow Home Secretary said earlier, we now have a situation where reported rape is up, but prosecutions are down, and violent crime is up, but prosecutions and convictions are down, because there is a justice gap—a simple failure to enforce the law. Indeed, the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), was right to refer to the fact that there have been two convictions for FGM.
	I have to say that in addition to the failure to enforce the law, this is the worst possible time for the Government to impose the biggest cuts to policing in any country in Europe. With the mounting challenges of serious and organised crime, that is having a significant impact, in particular in areas such as tackling child sex exploitation. I have met the Association of Chief Police Officers leadership dealing with Operation Notarise and, as the shadow Home Secretary said earlier on, 20,000 people have been identified but 700 have been acted upon at this stage. At the heart of that is the fact that the police service, with the immense pressures on it, simply cannot cope, and therefore those who pose a significant risk and whose identity is known have yet to be acted against. That cannot be right.
	I will now turn briefly to the six sections of the Bill. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was introduced by a Labour Government in 2002. At the heart of the action now being taken is two damning reports produced in the last 18 months, the first by the National Audit Office and the other by the Public Accounts Committee. There were some 673,000 convictions in the courts in 2012-13, but there were 6,392 confiscation orders, and only £26 in every £100 is recovered and, to add insult to injury, it tends to be the Costa del Sol bank robber who gets away with it most. That is why I think there are serious flaws in the legislation—the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) was right in relation to the incentive scheme and how it works—and that is why we have pressed for action on a number of fronts, and we welcome the fact that some progress is now
	being made on designer divorces, default sentences, the requirement to bring forward the determination of third-party interests from the enforcement stage, and reducing the time given to offenders to pay confiscation orders. However, we need to go further to ensure that crime does not pay and we will be tabling amendments in Committee, including for the burden to fall more heavily on the criminal to prove they do not have the assets that should be seized.
	On computer misuse, cyber-crime is a growing area of concern in the UK. As we live in an increasingly digitised world, the nature of crime is changing. Credit card fraud, identity theft, phishing, child exploitation and industrial espionage are all perils of technological advancements. The hon. Member for Wimbledon was right to talk about the immense damage that can be done, including to our economy. As on the European arrest warrant, the Government are right on this front also to recognise the benefits of European collaboration, by implementing the EU directive on attacks against information systems. We therefore support the legislation the Government are bringing forward which creates a new offence of hacking that causes serious damage and makes it clear to UK citizens that they will be committing a crime whether in the UK or not.
	However, an Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary report released last year found that, despite the growing risks, only three police forces had sufficient plans in place to deal with a large-scale cyber-attack. Furthermore, it revealed that only 2% of police staff across 37 forces had been trained in investigating cyber-crime. Resources are therefore key, and so too is a serious strategy to combat cyber-crime. We will argue, therefore, for police forces to provide annually details of their cyber-crime strategy and their progress to date, and also for the targeted recruitment of cyber-crime and financial experts and for the private sector to rise to the challenge. To this end, we want to see many more examples of what I have seen in the City of London police’s National Fraud Intelligence Bureau—namely, the use of seconded experts from banks and insurance companies. Such institutions need to do much more to tackle those practices that damage their customers as well as their reputation.
	On organised serious and gang-related crime, many criminal gangs involve corrupt and complicit professionals who support and benefit from organised crime. The gangs use their expertise and skills to help them to evade the law; those people are the professional enablers of crime. The Government have been right to act on this practice; they have also been right to shift on this matter during the debates in the House of Lords in order to get the balance right. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd was also right to say that it is important to ensure that those who are innocent and inadvertently caught up in illegal activity are protected.
	We believe that we have reached the right place on that particular issue, but we want to explore in Committee the question of serious crime prevention orders. We shall also table amendments to the proposals for gang injunctions, not least because we have heard worrying reports from front-line professionals about the operational effectiveness of such injunctions and the impact of the abolition of antisocial behaviour orders. We will press those matters further during the passage of the Bill in Committee.
	Part 4 of the Bill covers the seizure and forfeiture of drug-cutting agents. Certain chemical substances can mimic and resemble drugs and can therefore be used as cutting agents for bulking illegal drugs to maximise criminal profit margins. Those substances also pose a threat to drug users, some of whom pay with their lives. We support the Government’s proposal to allow law enforcement agencies to seize any substances reasonably suspected to be intended for use as a cutting agent. However, this part of the Bill feels very much like an empty promise, not least because the latest Home Office figures on drug seizures show a dramatic decrease in the volume of drugs seized by police forces over the past year. Indeed, with mounting pressure on resources, the number of heroin seizures between 2009-10 and 2012-13 fell by more than 50% despite the fact that there was only a marginal decrease in its consumption rate.
	Part 5 covers the crucial matter of the protection of children. There is now a great national will to tackle the exploitation of children by evil adults who prey on their vulnerability. That has been reflected in the debate here today. We have heard excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport and for Rotherham and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). It is welcome that the Government have acted in the Bill, but it is surprising that they did not initially go far enough. For example, following a campaign from the NSPCC and Lord Harris of Haringey, the Government have now moved to include in the Bill an offence of sending sexual messages to a child, which is welcome. Similarly, following a campaign by the charity Action for Children, the Government changed their position on child neglect by updating the offence to include emotional neglect and psychological harm.
	We have heard powerful testimony here today of the need for the Bill to go further, and for us to stop demonising the victims of child sexual abuse—for example, by branding them as prostitutes. We have heard of the need for a fundamental culture change. Crucially, however, this is about what we do, which is why we intend to propose a measure to make it a mandatory duty to report such abuse. This would make it clear that cultural change must take place in every institution. Anyone who knows something must report it, and not be tempted to think that such matters can be solved quietly and privately by brushing them under the carpet. A clear message needs to be sent that people should not put institutional reputation before protecting children.
	In Committee, we will also press for further action on female genital mutilation, which is recognised internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. We have heard powerful examples today of the need to strengthen the Bill in this regard, but time does not permit me to go into further detail. However, we will seek to strengthen what are welcome steps in the right direction. The Government have moved, but they need to move further in the next stages of the Bill.
	Let me refer briefly to part 6. We support the proposed new offences on extra-territorial jurisdiction for offences committed under the Terrorism Act 2006 and on possession of a knife in prison, and the proposals on mobile operators being obliged to disconnect those in prison.
	In conclusion, this has been a well-informed debate on the scale and growing danger of serious and organised crime, with support from across the House—

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Gentleman will know that during my contribution I asked the Labour Front Benchers whether, in tackling serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland, they would commit any future Labour Government after May to legislate to ensure that the National Crime Agency is operational in Ulster.

Jack Dromey: We understand the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and the Government should have sorted this issue a long time ago. We will talk to all parties in Northern Ireland about making progress at the next stages. We see the strength of the argument being deployed and are sympathetic to it, but this is about how then we might go forward and that is necessarily done in dialogue with the parties in Northern Ireland.
	This well-informed debate has drawn on the experience of many Members of this House, and there has been much common ground. We want to ensure that the Bill becomes a strong Act, with strong action then taken to ensure the will of this House is acted upon. As we have seen time and again in today’s debate, times may change and the nature of crime may change, but we need to send an unmistakable message to those engaged in serious and organised crime: there will be no hiding place.

Karen Bradley: This has been a useful, constructive and detailed debate, and for that reason I am afraid that I will not be able to cover every point that was raised. I will, however, endeavour to do as much as I can.
	I welcome the cross-party support for the Bill, and I hope that serious and organised criminals—those who wilfully damage innocent lives—will hear the resounding message from this House: “If you take part in or support serious and organised crime, if you exploit the innocent and seek to harm vulnerable victims, hear this: we will pursue you relentlessly and disrupt your activities so that innocent people are protected.”
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary emphasised when opening today’s debate, and as I am sure we all agree, the National Crime Agency, the police, prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies must have the powers they need to counter the threat posed by serious and organised crime. It is clear to me that those who help maintain the security of this country and protect our communities must have the powers to bring to justice those who openly disregard the laws of this land. This Bill will be a strong step in that direction. When it comes to protecting our children, whether from exploitation or genital mutilation, and from paedophiles and perpetrators, I am sure that the whole House would agree that this Bill will and must help bring our children the protection they need and deserve.
	It is right that right hon. and hon. Members will want to test the strength of this Bill as we move on to clause-by-clause examination of the provisions in Committee. Today, we have heard a number of Members set out some important issues. Let me turn first to the
	contributions that related to the serious and organised crime measures in parts 1 to 4 of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) suggested that the Bill did not go far enough to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but I disagree. The Bill includes a substantial package of measures to strengthen POCA, including enabling assets to be frozen more quickly and earlier in investigations; significantly reducing the time the courts can give offenders to pay; ensuring that criminal assets cannot be hidden with third parties; and substantially lengthening the prison sentences for failing to pay confiscation orders. We remain open to examining any practical suggestions for further strengthening the asset recovery regime, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) has many suggestions to make in that area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) was right to say that these measures are important for all our constituencies because these issues affect all of us. We need to take measures that get money from criminals and stop them using that money to pursue criminal activities.
	The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), asked whether we could stop people from leaving the country. I just want to confirm that the proposed compliance orders, which include travel bans, can be maintained until a confiscation order has been paid. It will therefore be possible to maintain a travel ban once a defendant has completed his full sentence.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) asked about the review of the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. One key objective of the criminal finances improvement plan is to ensure that ARIS works effectively. The review has sought the views of all operational agencies that use the powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. A final report was presented to the Criminal Finances Board, which I chair, at its last meeting in December. The board’s recommendations are now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other relevant Ministers and I hope to be in a position to announce the outcome of the review soon.
	The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked about the test for making a restraint order. I agree that we need to make it easier for prosecutors to secure a restraint order so that assets can be frozen more quickly and earlier in an investigation. That is why the Bill replaces the existing “reasonable cause to believe” test with a lower threshold of reasonable suspicion, and I welcome her support for that change.
	Moving on to cyber matters, my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) welcomed the provisions on computer misuse in part 2 of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon talked about the work that needs to be done to tackle internet fraud. An example of the non-legislative work that we are doing to tackle such crime is investing in the Cyber Streetwise campaign, which encourages people and businesses to protect themselves by adopting sensible online behaviours. The second phase of this campaign, which was launched in October, has refreshed material and advice including on secure passwords. That matter was also addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and my hon. Friend the
	Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), both of whom have ministerial experience in this area. It is worth noting that GCHQ estimates that 80% of all cyber-attacks can be dealt with using what it describes as simple disinfectant—secure passwords and ensuring that malware and anti-virus software are updated.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke talked about business attitudes to cyber-crimes. She is absolutely right that business needs to take the problem seriously. I want to see more board-level input on cyber, as it is an important matter for all of us.
	Just quickly, the last time my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North answered my question when she was at the Dispatch Box, I was talking about strawberries. She managed to get in pizza today. It is quite nice that we managed to have food on both occasions—very much food for thought.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton, who has, through the dreadful case of Alice Gross, an understanding of the need for full criminal information, made an incredibly important point about how we must ensure that we are tackling serious crime. Free movement is one thing, but we need free movement of criminal information to tackle the scourge of organised crime, using the resources of Europol, which is led so well by Rob Wainwright. She also mentioned the point about Action Fraud. I have visited Action Fraud, and I am very impressed with the work that it does. It has enormous resources and the ability to tackle crime. I should like to see more information being passed to people about the way that their crimes are investigated. Action Fraud is on the right track to ensuring that we can tackle cyber-crime and deal with these important points.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) mentioned the food industry, illegal immigration and whether the participation offence would apply. He also raised those points earlier in Question Time, and I know that he was offered a meeting. I want to ensure that we take up that point, because it is important that we challenge how we use such measures.
	Let me turn next to a number of the points raised about the provisions in the Bill tackling cruelty to children, female genital mutilation and the amendment we intend to table on domestic abuse. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), welcomed the Government’s forthcoming amendment to provide for a new offence of sexual communication with a child, as announced at last month’s international “We Protect” summit. I also pay tribute to him for his work on paedophile manuals and I am pleased that there are measures in the Bill to deal with them. We are all utterly appalled to discover not only that such things exist but that they have existed for so long, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that.
	I also want to pay tribute to the many right hon. and hon. Members who have campaigned on the subject of non-physical cruelty and the neglect of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) asked about the scope of our change to the child cruelty offence. He has been a great campaigner on the subject, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate
	(Mr Burrowes). I also pay tribute to Paul Goggins, who was an incredible campaigner on the issue. The Bill is testament to his work.
	The changes we are making clarify that the ill-treatment limb of the offence can be committed in a non-physical way. We do not seek to overturn existing case law, which holds that the neglect limb of the offence relates only to the physical needs of the child, but the ill-treatment limb of the offence is broad enough to capture a sustained course of non-physical conduct, including, for instance, isolation, humiliation or bullying that is likely to cause a child unnecessary suffering or injury to health. Of course, it will always be for the courts or jury to determine whether an offence has been committed through a particular type of conduct in the specific circumstances of the case. My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Ceredigion also talked about the meaning of “wilful”. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was sitting next to me listening to the debate and is reflecting on the points that have been raised about the discussions in the other place on this matter.
	A number of Members commented on the question of cruelty committed against 16 or 17-year-olds and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke showed the difficulties we have in this regard. Some types of cruelty committed against 16 or 17-year-olds will, depending on the circumstances, already amount to other criminal offences, such as assault. Other laws already protect 16 and 17-year-olds from, for instance, sexual exploitation by those who hold a position of trust in their lives or from exploitation through prostitution or pornography, but those over 16 are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents and can, of course, consent to sex. We have a contradiction between the ever-lowering age of sexual maturity and the fact that emotional and mental maturity are not going down in age and we must therefore ensure that the law reflects that and that we have appropriate measures in place. I take note of the points that have been raised and will reflect on them.
	In the time I have left, I want to mention the campaign of the hon. Members for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on references to child prostitution in legislation. I want to be absolutely clear that children who are sexually exploited, whether for commercial or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They should be recognised as victims and we will certainly consider references in older legislation and guidance as opportunities arise, as well as considering carefully the wording used in any new legislation or guidance.
	A number of points were raised about female genital mutilation, but unfortunately time does not permit me to go into them in detail. I will endeavour to ensure that we cover them in Committee.
	It is clear that although there are some slight differences in approach, our aims are the same: to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need to tackle the serious and organised crime that shamelessly harms innocent people; to unite in condemnation of the vicious practice of FGM; and to protect children and the most
	vulnerable from abuse. I hope that those who commit such serious crimes will think again. If they do not, they must be pursued and brought to justice. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Serious Crime Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22 January 2015.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s Recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Serious Crime Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
	(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State;
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.

AUTISM: DIAGNOSIS OF CHILDREN, HULL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Diana Johnson: First, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting for the Adjournment debate this evening the important subject of the unacceptable length of time families in Hull are having to wait for a diagnosis of autism for their children. It is an issue I have grown increasingly concerned about over the course of the past year.
	I was first contacted in spring 2014 by constituents about how long they were having to wait for a diagnosis. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence produced a report in 2011, “Autism: Recognition, referral and diagnosis of children and young people on the autism spectrum”, which states that
	“the autism diagnostic assessment”
	should start
	“within 3 months of the referral”.
	The three-month target has since been reinforced by a NICE quality standard on autism, but the service level agreement set by Hull NHS clinical commissioning group is for children to be assessed within 20 weeks of referral, and what is actually happening is very different: families are waiting for well over 12 months, and even for 18 months, to get the diagnosis.
	I am particularly concerned about the role of Hull clinical commissioning group, whose job it is to make sure that health services are available and delivered to the local population in a timely manner. I believe the CCG is failing to do that in relation to diagnosing children with autism. It appears not to have a plan on how to tackle the backlog and is also failing to communicate with parents about how long they will really have to wait for a diagnosis. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to reassure me and my constituents that he will take action on the growing problem in Hull—and, I believe, in other parts of the country.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House for consideration. She has eloquently outlined the position in Hull. Across Northern Ireland, we have had a 67% increase in the number of individuals with autism and we have 1,300 children waiting to be assessed. The problems in Hull are replicated across the whole United Kingdom. One way in which the issue can be highlighted is, of course, through education in schools and hospitals, but the recognition of Dr Cassidy, chief executive of Autism Northern Ireland, in the new year honours list was another step in raising the profile of those with autism across the whole United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which sets the context very well.
	Let me tell the House about the experience of three families in my constituency and what the delays actually mean to families and children in Hull. Jayden was three years old when his family first contacted me. His mum, dad and grandmother were desperate to make sure that Jayden received the help he needed. His
	parents had tried to arrange an assessment with the autism panel in Hull. Without that diagnosis from the panel, Jayden’s parents could not access the specific local services that he needs. They were told that even if they obtained a private diagnosis from a doctor, it would not be acceptable.
	Jayden’s parents have found the whole situation very difficult, and I know that Jayden’s grandmother, Mrs Spivey, has really tried hard to fight for her grandson to get the help he needs. Despite initially being told that it would take 20 weeks for a diagnosis to be made, Jayden’s parents were eventually told that in fact it would take 57 weeks. Jayden is now four years old; he still has no diagnosis and he has no speech. His family wanted him to attend the Early Bird programme, an early intervention scheme, but this is available only to children who have received a diagnosis, and Jayden is still waiting.
	Thomas is 11 years old. His parents contacted me in June 2014. They believe that Thomas is on the autistic spectrum and have been trying for several months to obtain support. Thomas is high functioning and the long delay is adding to his anxiety. Thomas was referred to the autism panel in October 2013 and his parents were advised by child and adolescent mental health services that, due to the severity of his needs, he would be seen within 12 weeks. His parents have now been told that he is on the February 2015 list to start his assessment—15 months since the referral. This is what his parents say:
	“Thomas is suffering, he is an intelligent, beautiful little boy whose world is collapsing. He is confused by the behaviours he displays and cannot understand the responses which other people present. He is lonely and desperately in need of support. Likewise we are a family in crisis. We feel that Thomas deserves to know why there is insufficient funding to provide the diagnosis he so desperately needs. A diagnosis would bring him support and access to services which he needs to function.”
	Thomas’s parents have had little contact from the CCG. They too were initially told that the waiting time was 20 weeks.
	Isaac is three years old, and he suffers from severe social and communication difficulties. His parents requested an assessment for autism/sensory processing disorder He was referred to the autism panel in January 2014. His parents were initially told that he would be assessed within 20 weeks, but they have now been told that it will be Easter 2015 before he is assessed. Isaac’s parents were particularly concerned about applying for schools for him in September without having a formal diagnosis in place.
	These families in Hull are clear examples of unacceptable and lengthy delays in a diagnosis of autism causing real stress, hardship and worry to families, as well as to the children themselves who are missing out on services and help.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Does she remember that we were told that the review of CAMHS services in Hull in 2013 that led to the closure of the tier 4 unit—the in-patient facility at West End—was designed so that more resources could be put into early assessment and early diagnosis? Does she believe that we now have the worst of all worlds, with no in-patient CAMHS unit and still a very poor assessment and diagnosis time scale?

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who powerfully makes his point about how we are now in the worst of all worlds, with the early intervention not being there and the in-patient unit having been lost as well.
	The Government have talked at length about the strength of early intervention and how important it is, and we would all agree. We know that the sooner children get help, the better the outcomes for them.
	After raising my concerns with the clinical commissioning group on behalf of constituents in April last year, I was told that the waiting time for an assessment in Hull was approximately 14 months, not the 20 weeks that the CCG was telling people. The CCG told me that a number of issues had affected the delivery of the service. First, it said that there was an unexpected and significant increase in the number of referrals to the service, which in some months had tripled based on 2013 activity. It said that there had been several unanticipated changes in the staffing and resources for the lead organisation. It referred to the flooding of a children’s centre and classroom at Walker street, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), that is used by the autism service. It also said that the availability of specialist knowledge, skills and experience required to make a diagnosis of autism to meet the increased number of referrals had been lacking. The latest information that I have received indicates that the long wait has not improved in the past nine months—in fact, it looks as though it is getting worse—and yet families are still being told about the 20-week standard when they are first referred.
	In a letter dated 20 May 2014 from Emma Latimer, the chief officer at Hull CCG, I was told:
	“The CCG is working closely with the Humber NHS FT provider services to further understand the issues relating to the increasing waiting times for children and young people that are beyond the commissioned 20 week pathway.”
	In a further letter from Emma Latimer dated 8 August 2014, I was told:
	“As a result of recent pressures the whole assessment pathway was reviewed by commissioners and the service providers in early June 2014. We are working with the service to increase capacity in this specialist area and increase the number of assessments which can be undertaken. As well as exploring ways of working in order to expedite the process whilst maintaining the quality of the service. The changes proposed include a system to assist administration and aid report writing. These will release time for clinicians to conduct some more assessments.
	As Commissioners we are prepared to fund additional clinicians to conduct the assessments; this may include utilising other health care providers who already work closely with the Autism Team, including our local authority colleagues/services.
	We will continue to look for every opportunity to increase the resource in the Autism Team, and will continue to work closely with our providers in order to achieve a high standard of assessment in a more timely manner.”
	However, I had sight of a letter dated 28 October 2014 to a parent from the Humber NHS Foundation Trust, from which the situation appears very different. Philip King, the interim director of nursing, states:
	“The current position is that Humber NHS Foundation Trust prepared a business case for additional staffing which was sent to the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) for consideration over the summer. At the steering group meeting in September 2014 our staff gave the CCG an additional paper outlining the staffing needed to address the waiting list in addition to the staffing needed to meet the demand for the assessment service. A range of solutions for the capacity issue have been discussed openly with
	the commissioners who continue to communicate that they do not wish the service to change the level of assessment which is offered and is NICE compliant (although not to its timescales for waiting times).”
	The letter goes on to say:
	“As of today”—
	this is 28 October—
	“the Trust has not heard from the CCG regarding additional staffing capacity.”
	I have been chasing the CCG ever since to see what has happened, and I have been fobbed off. I have been promised information and updates, but I never get anything, including today, when I approached the CCG again. The CCGs set up under this Government need to be challenged about providing information and being held accountable for the services they provide. Over the past nine months it has been very difficult to find out what is going on. That is why I have brought this matter to the Floor of the House for a Minister to hear what is happening in CCGs.
	I am very concerned that Hull CCG is failing to tackle the problem and since the summer has been dragging its feet on making a decision on a business case that has been prepared to increase capacity. I am aware that the NICE three-month target for diagnosis is consistently not being met across the country. A survey conducted in 2011 by the National Autistic Society found that 48% of parents had to wait over a year for their child to get appropriate support, with more than a quarter saying that they had to wait over two years. In the same survey, 69% of parents said that their child’s educational progress had suffered because of a lack of timely support, and three quarters said that a lack of support had harmed their child’s social and communication skills.
	It is clear from the local cases I have referred to this evening that delays in obtaining an assessment can have a negative impact on a child’s education and development. So what can be done? First, Hull CCG needs a clear plan of action on how to tackle the backlog in diagnosing autism, and it needs to respond to the business case prepared in the summer by Humber NHS Foundation Trust.
	The National Autistic Society informed me that health services in Sheffield have achieved a significant reduction in waiting times by developing a dedicated diagnostic team, and ensuring that staff are not trying to do other jobs alongside playing a role in the diagnostic process. I want Hull to look at best practice elsewhere and have a clear plan of how to deal with the problem.
	I am concerned about the ability of services in Hull to recruit and retain suitably qualified clinicians. This has been mentioned to me by a number of different organisations, and I believe that there is a real problem in Hull. There is a competing demand for the same staff from the local authority, as they are required to complete what used to be called statements of special educational needs. I would like to know from the Minister what steps the Department of Health can take to ensure that sufficient numbers of clinicians are being trained in Hull and across the UK.
	Hull CCG needs to communicate better with parents so that expectations are realistic and based on honest information. I am disappointed to hear that the autism service is still sending out letters to parents which say that the waiting time for an assessment is 20 weeks.
	The Government recently set up a taskforce on children’s mental health and well-being. Part of the role of the group will be to look at the most effective way of commissioning appropriate services for children and young people with mental health problems. Can the Minister say whether the taskforce on children’s mental health and well-being will look at the specific commissioning of autism services locally? Can he confirm that the taskforce on children’s mental health and well-being will look at the specific challenges facing children with suspected autism in accessing a diagnostic assessment?
	In order to allow parents and stakeholders to hold local services to account, it is important that data on waiting times for the diagnosis of autism are routinely collected and published. The National Autistic Society has called for those data to be included in future revisions of health outcomes frameworks. What plans are there for including data on diagnosis of autism and waiting times in particular in the NHS outcomes framework and the CCG outcomes indicator set?
	Finally, I have also been asked specifically to raise the issue of girls being diagnosed on the autism spectrum and then being able to access appropriate autism services after being diagnosed. What additional support is being given to girls? I hope the Minister can give my constituents some hope this evening that addressing the problems in diagnosing autism in children can be speeded up considerably in Hull and in other parts of the country and that children can start to access the services they need fully to develop and reach their full potential.

Daniel Poulter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing this debate on what is an important issue for her constituents and for many families, both in Hull and across the country. She made a strong advocacy for the needs of Thomas and many of her other constituents, and discussed some of the challenges locally as well as the flooding of facilities in Walker street, which has affected services. I think she would agree that the situation that has developed locally over time is unacceptable. I hope I will be able to reassure her that improvements in access to services are taking place and that improvements have been made over the past 18 months or so.
	The National Autistic Society estimates that there are about 700,000 people in the UK with autism. We know that the right support from an early age, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said, can make a huge difference to the quality of life for children and adults with autism and for their families.
	Before I address some of the specifics of the local issues in Hull, I think it is worth talking about some of changes this Government have made to improve lifelong support for people with special educational needs such as autism. I hope that will address the questions the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked in her closing remarks about improving services for people in Hull with autism.
	The Children and Families Act 2014 introduced, from September, new joint arrangements for assessing, planning and commissioning services for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
	In the past, many children and their families have encountered a disconnected and fragmented system. Families, particularly those with a child with complex needs, have often faced a battle to secure all the necessary support services, finding themselves repeating the same story over and over again to different providers who are not integrated or working together properly.
	The new framework will change that. It is designed greatly to improve integrated working across health, education and social care, and to deliver improved outcomes for children and their families. CCGs and local authorities will work together to agree a local package of support services for children with special educational needs and to develop personalised education, health and care plans for each child who needs one, focusing on the outcomes that will make a real difference to the individual child and their family and friends.
	Each child, and each young person up to the age of 25, who needs an individual education, health and care plan will have one tailored to their individual needs, including their options for future employment and independent living. Involving the child and the family at every stage of the process is, of course, essential. The plan must be developed in collaboration with the child and the family, and should cover the range of services that the child will receive and the specific outcomes each service will deliver. The plans will also have a section for the child and the family to talk about themselves, their wishes and their aspirations, to set the context for the assessment of need. I am confident that this new approach will be a powerful tool to better join up and integrate services across the local NHS, education services and local authorities for the benefit of both children and adults with autism.
	On the specific issue of waiting times for diagnosis in Hull, we know that children with autism can benefit from receiving specialist services as early as possible. The hon. Lady made that important point. The new education, health and care plans will help to ensure that children receive all the support they need, but a diagnosis is of course crucial in identifying from which services a child might benefit.
	Hull CCG has committed to commissioning services with the aim of providing autism assessments and diagnoses within 20 weeks of referral, as the hon. Lady said. The CCG acknowledges that it is currently far from meeting that target. I agree with her that the situation at the moment is unacceptable. The current longest wait is almost 64 weeks, which is not appropriate or good for families. It is not right that anyone should have to wait that long, and it adds stress to what is often already a difficult time for families and children.
	It is vital to recognise that NICE has guidelines on the importance of early and timely access to autism services for a diagnosis, but we must also accept that when the CCG took over commissioning from the primary care trust in April 2013, it inherited an even worse position than the one we have now. The hon. Lady was disparaging about CCGs, but I hope that will give her some reassurance that the clinical leadership of the CCG—together with the changes put in place as a result of the local education, health and care plans—are improving the quality of services.
	Although only 52 children were waiting when the PCT transferred its responsibility to the CCG in April 2013, the longest wait at that point was 129 weeks, which is
	two and a half years. Hull CCG is working hard to address the issue of long waiting times for the assessments, and it has made substantial progress. The longest wait is now less than half the figure of 129 weeks. That reduction has been achieved while demand for autism services has been rising rapidly. The number of children requiring an assessment has increased sixfold, from 52 in April 2013 to 299 in December 2014. However, the long wait for services has halved, so some progress has been made.
	Like many areas across the country, Hull has seen a large increase in the number of children referred for autism assessments and diagnoses. If the growth in the number of referrals means that more children with autism are receiving a diagnosis and therefore access to the services that they need to succeed in life, then the trend is obviously positive. However, it does of course put pressure on the multidisciplinary teams working to provide the assessments needed for autism diagnoses.
	The hon. Lady drew attention to the fact that, in accordance with NICE clinical guidelines, Hull CCG commissioned an autism team made up of staff from a range of specialties and working for various providers. In response to the increase in demand for assessments, the CCG has been working with local providers to recruit additional staff to the autism team. However, it has found that recruiting to some specialties in the Hull area, particularly speech and language therapy, has been a challenge.
	The CCG is continuing to work with local health and care providers. I had a conversation with the CCG area team earlier today, and I was reassured that it is now looking with greater vigour to recruit more permanent staff where there are challenges. In the meantime, there is an agreement with current staff for them to put in additional hours to support better access to services. That is only part of a short-term solution, however; the long-term one has to be to recruit more staff, particularly in vital services such as speech and language therapy. I was encouraged to learn, during my conversation earlier today, that greater emphasis will be put on long-term recruitment in the Hull area.
	The CCG has also improved working practices in the autism team, which has freed up time to allow more assessments to take place. However, it is important to remember that, as the hon. Lady mentioned, Hull CCG lost an important clinical space when the Walker street children’s centre, a critical area for the service, was flooded during a tidal surge in December 2013. The centre allowed complex, multi-therapist diagnoses to be made, and its loss has had serious repercussions for the local service, which is not good for the delivery of timely access to diagnostic and other care services for people with autism. However, the CCG plans to reopen the centre early this year, which will go some way to reducing the waiting times for assessment. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady and her constituents.
	In the meantime, while the local NHS continues to work towards its commissioned target of a 20-week waiting time for autism assessments and diagnoses, it is also working to assist parents who are facing the current long waits for such assessments. The CCG is ensuring that while families are on the waiting list, they are able to contact the autism team. That enables them to access
	appropriate information and support services pending a formal diagnosis, which I believe is available from both voluntary and private providers in the area. That does not, of course, make the long wait for assessment and diagnostic services acceptable, but it means that families are not left completely unsupported and alone at what can be a difficult time.

Diana Johnson: I am listening carefully to the Minister and I am grateful that the CCG has been willing to brief him in a way that it was not willing to brief the local Member of Parliament. Does he find it acceptable that families are being told there is a 20-week wait for a diagnosis when clearly that is not the case? The wait is much longer, yet parents and families are still being given that false information.

Daniel Poulter: I agree that the current situation is not acceptable, but the CCG inherited a much worse position from the primary care trust, and it has made progress in addressing the needs of those who have been waiting the longest. As I described earlier, in April 2013 when the CCG came into existence, the longest wait was 129 weeks. In October 2014 that had fallen to 81 weeks, and by December 2014 to 63 weeks. Progress is being made to deal with those unacceptably long waits, but ensuring that all families receive timely access to services must be the next priority. I am sure that the reopening of the Walker street service will be helpful in that respect, and that the hon. Lady will hold the CCG to account and bring the matter back to the House if it does not deliver improved services in the near future. Progress has been made in dealing with those long waits, but there is a much greater need to ensure that all patients receive timely access to a service. While a 20-week waiting time is a strong move in the right direction, in future patients should expect the service to move towards NICE guidelines.
	Let me talk briefly about the broader issues that were raised in some of the interventions, such as training for staff. It is important that all NHS staff have a greater awareness of autism. The mandate for Health Education England was set by the Government and includes a requirement to develop a bespoke training course to allow GPs, who are often the first point of contact for many families, to develop a specialist interest in the care of young people with long-term conditions—including autism—by September 2015. Hon. Members may also have seen this week’s announcement by the Royal College of General Practitioners, which has launched a training programme for its members to improve the diagnosis of autism and support. I welcome that because when primary care is the initial point of contact for so many families, it is important that general practitioners have greater awareness and training in the challenges facing families with autism, and in how to recognise a child that may have autism.
	The Government have provided grant funding to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to lead a consortium of voluntary sector partners and medical bodies to develop an extensive programme of resources—Disability Matters—to be launched in early 2015. It is designed not only for health professionals but for the wider work force that engages with children, and will help to raise understanding in the NHS about how to support families and young people with disabilities,
	including autism. Importantly, the more we do to educate not just the health work force but those who work with children with autism more generally, the more we will encourage early access to the support that those children and families need.
	I commend the hon. Lady for her important and well-made case on behalf of her constituents with autism, and for raising an important matter about what has been unacceptably poor access to autism services in Hull for a number of years. I hope she is reassured that the CCG is beginning to make some progress, and I
	know that she and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who is sitting next to her, will do all they can to hold the CCG to account. I know they will not hesitate to bring this matter back to the House if improvements are not made in the months ahead.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.